AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: BigMattFromTexas on August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM

Title: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM
Almost all of San Angelo's BGS's are in Clearview font and i think it looks cooler than Highway Gothic fonts are kinda "not so cool". Houston Harte Expressway is Clearview, and Loop 306 is some Highway Gothic font and i don't really like it, but the funny thing is it's all the same highway.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: getemngo on August 03, 2009, 05:59:49 PM
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:

(http://michiganhighways.org/clearview/Interstate_2di_clearview.gif)
(Chris Bessert, michiganhighways.org)

I've seen a few of these shields in Detroit and I think I-69 has some as well.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on August 03, 2009, 06:01:41 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19880962i1.jpg)

So unappealing...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on August 03, 2009, 06:05:29 PM
ok so the numbers are REALLY ugly but i like the letters
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on August 03, 2009, 06:15:15 PM
To me, it really depends on how its used. When I first saw it in PA, I thought it was really bad. The spacing of the letters was off and the whole thing just looked sloppy.

However, I've seen pictures of newer installations in Texas, Virginia, and Michigan, and I must say that it's grown on me.  The new Clearview signs in those states look really sharp. I still prefer the FHWA fonts, of course...but Clearview is fine if used well.  I definitely prefer highway shields to be done in the FHWA fonts, though.

Granted, NYSDOT hasn't jumped on the whole Clearview bandwagon yet (of course, NY as a whole is behind the times :D ), but NYSTA has...and they don't do that great of a job with it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: florida on August 03, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
Clearview annoys the hell out of me like Comic Sans MS does.  :angry:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 03, 2009, 07:17:49 PM
I think it wouldn't irritate me so badly if it weren't for the lowercase L's. I'd rather have the slanted top the FHWA fonts' lowercase Ls have than the stupid little feet the Clearview ones have.

The problem I have with Clearview other than that is it just seems way too friendly of a font. That's probably because the counter spaces are larger (a design decision made for legibility). But it sometimes seems kinda inappropriate in a road context, especially if you follow the designers' recommendation to not set it in all uppercase:

(http://www.denexa.com/forum_img/cvparking.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2009, 07:49:46 PM
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??
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on August 03, 2009, 08:03:49 PM
A lot of it probably just is that everyone's used to the old FHWA Gothic and anything else, no matter what it is, is going to look "off" because it's not what we expect it to look like.

That said, I second the complaint about the lowercase Ls. Curly bottoms look bad.

And yeah, setting in all caps serves a purpose: to distinguish between parts of the message. In the example above, the street name gets more lost in the text in the "correct" version while it stands out more in selectively capslocked version.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 03, 2009, 08:54:25 PM
IIRC, Clearview was not meant to be used in route shields. More often than not, it isn't.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 04, 2009, 02:13:31 AM
what is "counter space"?

Counter spaces are the white spaces formed by the black space of a letter. So the loop of the "a" as well as the gap between its stories, the inside of the "o", the hole in the "e" and the space between its tail and the loop, etc. If you compare FHWA fonts to Clearview, you'll notice the holes are quite a lot bigger in Clearview. (Compare the lowercase "e"s in "Street" on my example for instance.) That's because the small counter spaces in FHWA fonts were perceived to be washed out by halation on retroreflective signs.

The larger counter spaces make the font seem more open, which in turn makes me perceive it as a more friendly font than the more down-to-business FHWA Series fonts. AT&T's use of it in their corporate branding certainly doesn't help–while FHWA fonts make me think "Trust me, doing what this sign says is best for your continued well-being", the Clearview fonts make me think "Hey! You know what would be synergistic?! Keeping right except to pass! Oh, and cell phones!"

Of course, the old block lettering makes me think "Keep it under 45 or I will hit you with this stick."

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??

You really need to put an index of these together someday.

IIRC, Clearview was not meant to be used in route shields. More often than not, it isn't.

It's more complex than that. The FHWA notice of provisional approval for Clearview only approved it for use as white text on a darker background. Studies had not effectively shown that there was a benefit for dark text on light background at the time (and in fact some studies conducted since then have shown that FHWA Series fonts might actually be more effective than Clearview at these types of applications). Dark-on-light has still not been approved, so really the only states that can properly use Clearview in state route shields are CA and MN, and neither of them seem too terribly interested in doing so. (Interstate shields are fair game.)

Of course Oklahoma in its infinite wisdom totally disregards FHWA best practices and sticks Clearview on whatever it wants.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on August 04, 2009, 02:29:17 AM
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19880962i1.jpg)

So unappealing...
...I'm surprised that "INTERSTATE" wasn't converted to Clearview to make it a 100% Clearview shield.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: rawmustard on August 04, 2009, 03:00:33 AM
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.

Yes, the route shields that have been done in Clearview are goofs. Of course, I don't expect MDOT is in a hurry to correct all of them, although a few have been.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Tarkus on August 04, 2009, 03:55:11 AM
The main reason I dislike Clearview is that it's just too thin.  I also fully concur on the lowercase Ls . . . the serifs ruin it.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 04:16:10 AM
gotcha re: "counter space" 

another problem with Clearview seems to be the wide kerning of the letters ... namely, blank space between letters is too large!  Look at your FHWA guide sign vs. the Clearview one, and see how much more space there is between the letters.  That is quite unattractive!

as for the custom state fonts... I am working on it!  See the shield gallery for lots of examples; and I can pull together what is needed if anyone requests a replica sign.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on August 04, 2009, 10:38:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SSOWorld on August 04, 2009, 11:14:53 AM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on August 04, 2009, 11:27:27 AM
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

True
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 04, 2009, 11:34:41 AM
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?  :poke:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: exit322 on August 04, 2009, 08:30:47 PM
If you're going to use goofy fonts, go all out and put all signs in wingdings!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on August 04, 2009, 08:49:58 PM
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?  :poke:

(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4003/482comicsans.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on August 04, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
I wonder if there was some road signs tested with Comic Sans MS?  :poke:

(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4003/482comicsans.png)

 :ded:

Some fonts are too cute for highways.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: getemngo on August 04, 2009, 10:36:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: florida on August 05, 2009, 01:22:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2009, 01:30:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 05, 2009, 10:58:24 AM
Quote
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on August 05, 2009, 07:05:35 PM
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.

 :ded:

Goth shield. Never knew that VDOT loved mutant goth state route shields.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 06, 2009, 11:38:36 AM
That's not a VDOT sign. Hopewell is an independent city, and so it maintains its own signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on August 06, 2009, 07:23:46 PM
I see.

Even though VDOT didn't put it up, it still looks like something from a trash can.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on August 06, 2009, 08:17:08 PM
I think the lower case "L's" are cool, the gothic "L's" are fine too, but i like Clearview's the best
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on August 06, 2009, 09:01:57 PM
I think the lower case "L's" are cool, the gothic "L's" are fine too, but i like Clearview's the best

I guess, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  :sombrero:

Personally, I think Clearview simply looks too thin and sparse.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: florida on August 06, 2009, 10:57:43 PM
I think the lower case "L's" are cool, the gothic "L's" are fine too, but i like Clearview's the best

You're such a sheep  ;-)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 06, 2009, 11:21:45 PM
I see.

Even though VDOT didn't put it up, it still looks like something from a trash can.

Given the part of town it's in, that might not be far from the truth. :p
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bryant5493 on August 06, 2009, 11:46:53 PM
That signage from Virginia's ugly.

Those Clearview numbers are heidious on those Interstate shields.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on August 07, 2009, 01:55:56 PM
I don't like Clearview, and can't really say why.  I guess the best explanations I've seen here are it: Change from the norm and it's too "friendly".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 07, 2009, 06:15:47 PM
Another possible argument against Clearview: While the font might be more readable to people who've never driven in America before, Americans have seen the old fonts for so long they can recognize the familiar letterforms more quickly than the Clearview ones. In fact, I did a few informal readability tests in high school that suggested this was the case.

Not entirely sure though, cause Clearview is, for all its faults, easier to read when set properly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 08, 2009, 03:55:49 AM
It may be easier to read, but did any of the past fonts have readability issues to begin with? Not that I know of.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on August 08, 2009, 04:20:29 AM
It may be easier to read, but did any of the past fonts have readability issues to begin with? Not that I know of.

The FHWA fonts caused readability issues for some drivers (especially older drivers) on guide signs at night.  Glowing/halation on lower case looped/rounded letters was a big problem for these drivers, making such letters appear as blobs.

This is actually one of the principle reasons for the research and development of Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 08, 2009, 08:35:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on August 09, 2009, 04:33:35 PM
^^^ I lol'd!  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on August 09, 2009, 04:33:44 PM
Because it's ugly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on August 09, 2009, 04:34:46 PM
Clearview annoys the hell out of me like Comic Sans MS does.  :angry:

Touche.  I've been annoyed by Craptic Scams since I was a little kid.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: florida on August 09, 2009, 04:37:10 PM
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.

Either that, or stop buying your reading glasses from Dollar General or Wal-Mart.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2009, 09:52:42 PM
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.

yeah but have they phased out all the old deer yet?  I know TXDOT is usually pretty quick on infrastructure projects, but I don't want to run into one thinking I'll get a car wash and then have it turn out to be the old kind with the red inside.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 09, 2009, 10:03:12 PM
The new deer are three times as ugly and their tails curl, aiding your identification of them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on August 10, 2009, 01:29:48 PM
HA!  :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DanTheMan414 on August 10, 2009, 02:07:49 PM
I personally prefer Clearview, in part because it is easier to see the signs in photos.  :sombrero:  In all honesty, I don't have a problem with it, as long as they don't use the font in shields.

Of note, by the way: Ohio is now officially starting to sign in Clearview.  A re-signing of I-77 around the I-277/US 224 interchange in Akron has been done sometime between March & last week in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 22, 2009, 01:20:42 PM
Here's the crazy sign from Hopewell on VA 36 approaching VA 10  (http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt304/24DIDNOTWIN/VA36EASTNEARVA10.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 22, 2009, 01:48:34 PM
Close your eyes! Its town signage! :|

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/3016347463_79ae15e184_b.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 22, 2009, 02:17:12 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 22, 2009, 03:25:51 PM
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

Not only that, but that one looks NEW.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 26, 2009, 06:22:37 PM
First off this is highway related cause it's a HIGHWAY font!!
Anyways, has anyone else noticed that the alltel logo looks just like the Clearview font?
Well alltel is my cell service and so on my cell phone it has a picture of the logo, and it took me a while to figure it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alltel_logo.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alltel_logo.svg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clearview_font.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clearview_font.svg)
See the resemblance? I do!
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bryant5493 on September 26, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
Yeah, that's Clearview alright.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: aswnl on September 26, 2009, 06:50:08 PM
Looks much more like DIN1451 to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2009, 07:17:40 PM
it is indeed DIN1451 Mittelschrift (the wider of the two series). 

the "a" is distinctly different between Clearview and the Alltel logo.

(a tangential question - is there a wider DIN1451 family member than Mittelschrift?  Seeing as "mittel" is middle, and it's about the width of American Series D, and the US fonts go up to Series G.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 26, 2009, 09:42:25 PM
Looks much more like DIN1451 to me.
But the DIN1451 "e's" are different than the "e's" in the alltel logo.
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 26, 2009, 09:53:12 PM
There's a Series G? I've never seen anything wider than Series F.

AT&T's logo is not in Clearview, but all of their promotional material is set in Clearview. There is a variant of Clearview called ClearviewOne which is modified for print usage (the kerning, for example, is much tighter).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2009, 10:58:11 PM
there is A through G in the square fonts.  Of the round fonts, B through F match the widths of the old square fonts (and in fact, for some of the angular letters with no arcs in them, the letters remain exactly the same - H for example).  Round A is just a tad narrower than Round B, but Square A is about half the width of Square B.  You can (barely) see Square A here:

(http://www.artistjake.com/f/ca/x6194.jpg)


Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2009, 11:03:00 PM
But 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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 26, 2009, 11:22:33 PM
There is indeed a DIN typeface that is less condensed than Mittelschrift--I think it's called Breitschrift.  It is not used on German signing anymore but is quite popular in Hungary.  Some examples here:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=460510&page=109 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=460510&page=109)

The modern DIN typefaces are not precisely the same as those used during the Nazi period, and I think the typeface designs were "forked" before reunification, with both the BRD and DDR having their own versions, but I haven't really found a coherent account of German traffic sign typography yet.

For that matter, British traffic sign typefaces are Transport Medium and Transport Heavy.  A Transport Light was developed, and was briefly considered in the early 1960's for use with internally illuminated signs, but I am not aware that the glyphs still survive.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2009, 11:27:02 PM
I believe I found a download for Breitschrift:

http://www.fontriver.com/font/din_1451_fette_breitschrift_1936/ (http://www.fontriver.com/font/din_1451_fette_breitschrift_1936/)

the name makes sense.  "breit" is German for "broad".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 26, 2009, 11:58:13 PM
But 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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 11:46:16 AM

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

engschrift, mittelschrift, and breitschrift are the words.  They refer to different widths.  "schrift" is German for "script", and as we all know, German combines its adjectives with its nouns to produce single, compound, words.  I do not know what "eng" means but I would assume "narrow" or "thin", to go with "mittel" (medium) and "breit" (broad).  They are, respectively, a bit narrower than FHWA Series C, a bit narrower than D, and a bit wider than E.

Differences in E: in DIN 1451 Mittelschrift, the stroke width is identical all across the letter, while in Clearview, the round parts are a heavier stroke than the crossbar.  Also, the bottom end of the letter: mittelschrift has the letter end at about a 45 degree angle, while Clearview is only about 30 degrees away from the vertical.

that is the E.  the differences in the A are far more significant. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 27, 2009, 01:22:58 PM
Historically it is fairly common to have traffic signing typefaces in multiple levels of condensation, and then to prune down the levels of condensation that are actually used on traffic signs.  Germany (dumping Breitschrift) and the US (dumping rounded Series A) are far from alone in this respect.

Switzerland used to use the VSS-Schriften, which are available in at least three levels of condensation.  The VSS-Schriften are no longer used in Switzerland--they have been replaced with ASTRA-Frutiger, at just one level of condensation--but they live on in Belgium and Bulgaria.

In France there are currently four typefaces in use, L1 through L4.  L1 and L2 are essentially the same sans-serif typeface, with different stroke widths to accommodate positive and negative contrast.  The same is true of L3 and L4, both of which are derived from an italic humanist typeface very similar (if not identical) to the one Adrian Frutiger developed for signs within Charles de Gaulle airport.  There is not much variation in condensation between L1/L2 and L3/L4, so now when the French want to de-emphasize the length contrast between a short placename (like PARIS) and a long one (like ARROMANCHES), the increase the intercharacter spacing (125% default, I've seen up to 200%) in the short placename or reduce it in the long one (I've seen down to 50%).

But these are the modern L1-L4 typefaces.  Until the early 1980's, the French used a different ensemble of three typefaces, and did not attempt to compensate for positive or negative contrast.  Old L1 had letterforms more or less identical to modern L1/L2; old L2 was a more condensed (thinner) version of old L1; and old L3 was an italic roman typeface.  You can still see examples of old L3 on flag signs in major cities and on some really old autoroute signs.  Also, Spain used the old French L1 and L2 typefaces until 1992 when, in its own traffic signing reform, it went to Autopista (essentially a modification of FHWA Series E Modified) and Carretera Convencional (similar to Transport Heavy but with an even heavier stroke and the letterforms modified to have the same 4:3 ratio between uppercase letter height and lowercase loop height, which Autopista carried over from Series E Modified).

Mexico has its own alphabet series, at multiple levels of condensation, for traffic signs.  Letterform drawings are in the Manual de Dispositivos para el Control del Tránsito en Calles y Carreteras (http://dgst.sct.gob.mx/index.php?id=602), but in comparison to the FHWA series, the series designators are numbers rather than letters and count up (rather than down) with increasing levels of condensation, SCT Series 0 (somewhat similar to FHWA Series F) being the least condensed.  Many of the letterforms are very similar to, but not identical to, those of FHWA alphabet series at similar levels of condensation.  The most blatant differences are in R and P in the series (SCT Series 1-3) usually found on most Mexican direction signs, which have large droopy loops like R and P in old French L1/modern French L1 and L2.

In practice it is not nearly as routine to see signs using the correct typefaces in Mexico as it is in the US, however.  The impression I get is that there are just two or three major vendors of traffic signs in Mexico, one of which uses the actual SCT series, while another uses the FHWA alphabet series, and the third uses some kind of ugly Arial/Helvetica knockoff.  Mexican road agencies don't penalize these signing companies for using the wrong typefaces and, as a result, a wide assortment of typefaces can be found on Mexican roads.  I have even seen pictures of Mexican signs using Transport Heavy (!) in a SCT annual report.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
in Mexico, even within prescribed fonts, there is great variety of implementation.  These two signs are intended to be various widths of the same font:

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19830031t200030.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19830031t200030.jpg)

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19830012t200010.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19830012t200010.jpg)

but they are very different - note how "Cuota" and "Libre" look almost nothing alike.

there is this font that shows up on occasion, which seems to be an Arial Black knockoff:

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX20020031t200030.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX20020031t200030.jpg)

here is a compressed Series D (instead of using the correct Series C) on this very old guide sign:

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19600011t200030.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19600011t200030.jpg)

and yes, here is that Arial knockoff, with something entirely else for LIBRE.  LIBRE looks good, but Arial should never, ever be used anywhere.

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX20020021t200020.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX20020021t200020.jpg)

every so often, this font shows up on route shields.  It appears to have been cut out from vinyl by hand, and casually resembles Massachusetts's font from a distance.

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19770031t200030.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=MX19770031t200030.jpg)



I definitely prefer the classic font, of which the first two were examples.  I do not know its name, but it seems to be the oldest, and has a distinct character to it.  The FHWA knockoff isn't bad.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 27, 2009, 03:41:43 PM
There is definitely huge variation in how Mexican signs look--I think--to the extensive use of stencils to cut the letters out of retroreflective sheeting.  Many letters are also "wonky" (at a slight angle to vertical), and the stroke width of small letters in shields (e.g. "MEXICO" in the federal route marker) is often uncertain.

In the case of the first two examples you posted URLs for, I think it is more a question of the correct lowercase typeface not being used on either sign.  One sign has "Cuota" with print a and is clearly incorrect for that reason alone.  The other is more nearly correct but still looks more like fixed-pitch Letter Gothic than the real thing.  (In Mexico the lowercase alphabet is a separate entity, like the FHWA lowercase alphabet used to be before all of the all-uppercase FHWA alphabet series got officially approved lowercase letters in 2004.  It is quite common for the lowercase alphabet, whose letters are rather fat, to be used with very thin uppercase letters.)

On Mex. 16, at a railroad crossing near Coyame in the middle of the desert, I ran across a "DISMINUYA SU VELOCIDAD" sign which had been done with the correct lettering, but was clearly hand-painted.  The retroreflectorization had been done by pouring white paint over the sign blank and then tossing glass beads on top.  The lettering was done, I think, by stencils after the white paint had dried with the glass beads fixed in place.  Also on Mex. 16 in Yécora, many hundreds of km west and just over the Sonora border, I found a number of km-posts (including shields) which were clearly hand-painted in black on white enclosed-lens retroreflective sheeting--done with considerable attention to detail, but with just enough waviness in the curved elements and enough thickness variation in the lettering to give it away as a hand job.

(BTW, one thing I found very hard to get used to in Mexico was having to stop at every railroad crossing.  In the US automatic gate control is so common we just don't think as we cross railroad tracks, but in Mexico it is all but unknown even on heavily used four-lane urban arterials.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2009, 04:42:50 PM
the glass-bead technique is tried and true and goes back many years.  The US was playing around with it in the late 1920s, and Scotchlite is nothing more than glass beads, of a very small size, enclosed between two adhesive substrates. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: US71 on September 27, 2009, 05:36:22 PM
It's sort of a moot point with Alltel since they are being absorbed by Verizon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 28, 2009, 07:32:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2009, 07:46:17 PM
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.

it's designed to be good and legible.  Chevron, the gas station chain, uses Series E for their prices a lot of the time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 28, 2009, 07:55:18 PM
I found a the closest thing to a Clearview font in the default fonts, it's called Gisha. And ive been using it on all my newer BGS's.
http://picasaweb.google.com/bigmatt30000/RandomPointlessStuff?feat=directlink (http://picasaweb.google.com/bigmatt30000/RandomPointlessStuff?feat=directlink)
BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2009, 08:23:36 PM
that font is way too nice to be Clearview.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 28, 2009, 09:13:50 PM
that font is way too nice to be Clearview.

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.
Thus is why i said the closest thing to Clearview :-o
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 28, 2009, 09:36:02 PM
Why would you want a fake Clearview when the real thing is available?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on September 28, 2009, 10:17:13 PM
Why would you want clearview at all...  :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: yanksfan6129 on September 28, 2009, 11:02:21 PM
Suddenly, Matt, you seem obsessed with clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: FLRoads on September 29, 2009, 12:20:44 AM
Quote
Why would you want clearview at all...

Indeed.

Why would anyone want Clearview when Highway Gothic is just as good...why fix a wheel that is apparently NOT broken...

Clearview is too overrated in my opinon, especially after seeing tons of it in PA this weekend, and one sign along the NY Thruway...

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-090_exit_37_01.jpg)
Approaching Electronics Parkway in the western portion of Syracuse along the NY Thruway. Photo taken 09/27/09.

Give me Highway Gothic anyday...

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on September 29, 2009, 01:40:38 AM
Wow...so they replaced a perfectly good old button copy sign with...that?

I've seen some jurisdictions use Clearview fairly well. NYSTA is not one of them...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on September 29, 2009, 03:29:25 AM
True enough, NYSTA's clearview signs do immediately jump out at you in a rather loud fashion, with the letters (at least appearing to be) so much bigger and all. Probably wouldn't be as bad if they were all that way, but when you mix and match, even on the same gantry...
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7301/dscn5577f.jpg)
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/199/dscn5580.jpg)
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8902/dscn5581.jpg)
*shudder*

They can't position the exit tabs consistently, either. :-/
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: froggie on September 29, 2009, 06:42:14 AM
To be fair, those Clearview Thruway signs do show up a bit more legible/clearly than the related Highway Gothic signs, which was the intention of Clearview (especially with older drivers...and there are far more of them on the roads these days).  Whether that's due to the font itself or going with a larger font size remains to be seen...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on September 29, 2009, 10:52:23 AM

They can't position the exit tabs consistently, either. :-/

That's the beauty of sign contractors simply "carbon copying" the old sign. Way to do a little bit of updating on the signs!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 29, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
If you think Pennsylvania is bad for Clearview, go to Michigan. They are actively replacing perfectly good signs in the FHWA font with Clearview. There's a soon-to-begin project to replace signage on I-196 south of Grand Rapids, and a lot of signs in perfect condition have been tagged for replacement. Michigan apparently took the approval of Clearview as a mandate to change all signs to Clearview ASAP.

I'm getting used to seeing Clearview now, and it's not a great shock to see it in Kentucky anymore. Only place I've been surprised to see it recently was in West Virginia, where they are just now implementing it and some signage on I-64 has been replaced with new Clearview panels.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on September 29, 2009, 01:33:54 PM
that font is way too nice to be Clearview.

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.
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...

Open Type - Current Version
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/Clearview.png)

True Type - Older Version
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/Clearview-TTF.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on September 29, 2009, 01:42:59 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 29, 2009, 03:13:37 PM
That's kinda similar to the Leelawadee font that comes with Vista...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SSOWorld on September 29, 2009, 08:02:10 PM
Merged the three Clearview topics - in the future please search for existing threads before making new ones on the subject.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Marc on September 29, 2009, 11:14:52 PM
Well, I have mixed emotions on Clearview.

While I do prefer the old Highway Gothic font, I will say that Clearview is quite a bit easier to read at greater distances, which is what they're trying to accomplish by switching. Having said that, I can live with Clearview just as long as it's done tastefully, and from the states I've seen, Texas is really the only state that has done so.

I really like the way Texas proportions the street name letter size to the milage letter size.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c61/HoustonNews/Katy.jpg)

Although, like I said, I still prefer Highway Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on September 30, 2009, 08:29:56 PM
I like both fonts but i like Clearview better. And one thing ive found out is Clearview looks HORRIBLE in an area with Highway Gothic signs and vice versa! thats what TxDOT did with signs all over Tom Green County :ded:
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on October 01, 2009, 09:05:57 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: US71 on October 01, 2009, 11:55:31 AM
Quote
IF states are going to switch to Clearview, they need to keep the FHWA Series numbers (at least on the route markers).

Arkansas does, for the most part.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 11, 2009, 08:59:18 PM
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).

Most states do, though a few didn't for a while (see Michigan, for instance).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on October 12, 2009, 10:48:42 PM
Alabama has a bad habit of putting clearview signs in ALL CAPS.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rover_0 on October 13, 2009, 11:44:01 AM
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!

No sir, I don't like it.    :thumbdown:  :angry:

That's all I have to say about Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: UptownRoadGeek on October 13, 2009, 12:55:32 PM
I like it in Texas, nowhere but Texas.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on October 13, 2009, 07:37:45 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2009, 11:46:58 PM
And there are even still people blocking the intersection!  :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Marc on October 14, 2009, 12:02:53 AM
And there are even still people blocking the intersection!  :-D
They're blocking it because they are smart enough to not take a sign printed in Comic Sans seriously.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on October 14, 2009, 05:39:57 PM
And there are even still people blocking the intersection!  :-D
They're blocking it because they are smart enough to not take a sign printed in Comic Sans seriously.

Yes, it looks like a sign that a child created.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 14, 2009, 07:38:18 PM
what does the hourglass mean?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on October 14, 2009, 08:53:20 PM
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)).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on October 14, 2009, 09:59:15 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 15, 2009, 10:32:25 AM
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)).

There's something similar in Virginia Beach.

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3/Images/96.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2009, 11:42:49 AM
don't forget the Idiot Sans font used on the "My ancestor blob works here, slow the fudge down" signs in construction zones.  Some new ones just cropped up on I-25 southbound just north of Raton Pass.  Blech. 

(Of course, there is no actual evidence of construction going on, but I see Colorado Highway Patrol vehicles in that stretch all the time ...)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: yakra on October 29, 2009, 12:40:17 AM
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."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on November 02, 2009, 10:49:37 AM
Found a bizarre sign last night on the westbound Reagan Tollway (I-88).  Wish I had had a camera.  :-(
It was an odd mutant with both Highway Gothic and Clearview.  The sign was just west of the ramp merging from the southbound Tri-State Tollway (I-294), and it read:

22nd Street
TO [83]
2 MILES

Now, the "22nd Street" was in highway gothic, as was the "TO" and the route shield.  However, the "2 MILES" was in clearly in Clearview!  I could tell by comparing the shapes of the 2s in "22nd" and "2 MILES".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: florida on November 02, 2009, 01:22:53 PM
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:

Where does one find an hourglass huge enough to block?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: juscuz410 on November 02, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
Ohio Clearview updates:
We've already covered I-77 from New Phila. on north. I-71, I-490 in Cleveland are now sporting CV in addition to the updated Gothic. In Newark, the rebuilt ramp of SR-13 are now sporting CV. I-270/SR-161 interchange in C-bus the "Exit 30" sign is in CV. I-70 East in Belmont County new CV signage went up all over the place. That's all I've got today.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on November 12, 2009, 10:07:40 PM
Alabama Update:

Earlier Today, I found two overhead signs now sporting Clearview in Birmingham.  These signs were put up earlier this week.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on November 12, 2009, 10:17:58 PM
I spotted the first freeway-grade Clearview sign on Interstate 10 west after Exit 10 on October 1:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/southeast/i-010_wb_exit_004.jpg)

Just two weekends ago, I found a second new assembly posted on Alabama 181 north at Interstate 10's Exit 38.



Also spotted a handful of Clearview signs along Interstate 75 in Ohio. Most of these were brown attractions signs, but there were a few brand new exit signs with the font as well...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on November 12, 2009, 10:34:42 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Here is one of the first overhead BGS in Birmingham to sport Clearview:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0419.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on November 12, 2009, 10:38:50 PM
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!

(http://www.southeastroads.com/alabama200/us-280_wb_at_us-031.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on November 12, 2009, 10:45:15 PM

Ugh! Carbon copy (minus the arrow), replaced button copy, and removed overhead lighting fixtures. Triple whammy!


Don't worry, it gets even better Eastbound:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0420.jpg)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 13, 2009, 07:02:18 PM
Ok, the Interstate 96 shields using the Clearview font on first page made my eyes bleed. X-( :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on November 13, 2009, 07:07:01 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 13, 2009, 07:11:05 PM
My eyes!!!!!

It should be illegal to have such ugly font. :ded:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2009, 08:45:49 PM
My eyes!!!!!

It should be illegal to have such ugly font. :ded:

and that is why we must preserve old signs ;)  rate of Clearview on old California porcelains: 0.00% and holding steady.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 13, 2009, 08:54:46 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2009, 09:12:57 PM
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!

indeed, the large numbers look very silly, but they've been around for a while.  There's a porcelain green sign in Reno that has an I-80 shield like it, and that sign dates back to 1978.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on November 13, 2009, 09:31:10 PM
Who ever came up with this font should be hanged. X-(

I really don't see the point of it, it's not better than the standard font, it's actually worse.Obviously the transportation agencies must have all gone blind by the font's ugliness and have no idea what they are doing.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on November 13, 2009, 09:37:56 PM
Who ever came up with this font should be hanged. X-(

IIRC The person that developed Clearview is a professor at Penn State University in State College, PA.

Maybe the proximity to I-99 clouded his judgment!  :pan:  :rofl:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wytout on November 14, 2009, 04:55:33 AM
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)

Clearview is bad enough on BGS's.  But at least most of those BGS's still use the graceful FHWA Standard fonts for numbers on Route shields. This is horrible.  Those shields are FUgly.  I still say there is nothing more pleasing to the eyes than than the Type C and Type D number set in standard FHWA fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on November 14, 2009, 10:13:04 AM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-096_wb_exit_185_01.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/i-096_wb_exit_185_01.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: simguy228 on November 14, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
... Clearview is kinda creepy to me. Would'nt think they would use it on many highways :-P :)
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)
Is that in FL? If so what part of FL
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2009, 01:04:36 PM
no, it's in Michigan.  Sault Ste Marie
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: simguy228 on November 14, 2009, 02:33:43 PM
Oh... :-P
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 17, 2009, 07:31:22 AM
seriously, if Clearview is oh-so-legible, why don't they use it on stop signs?  (Don't get any ideas, anyone.)

Simple answer:  the MUTCD requires that signs be designed in accordance with Standard Highway Signs and there is already a SHS design for the STOP sign which does not use Clearview.  FHWA's interim approval to use Clearview in positive-contrast situations does not override the requirement to conform to SHS, which is the main reason Clearview is used only on so-called "designable" signs where the legend has to vary to suit sign location and purpose.  Most of these are guide signs and route marker signs (excluding tabs).

More complex answer:  for its effect the STOP sign depends primarily on shape and only secondarily on text legend.  The text legend is also overdesigned (only one word, and very tall relative to sign height) compared to guide signs in general.  Thus, even the most rabid Clearview advocates can't claim a practical benefit from scrapping existing STOP sign silkscreens.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2009, 10:38:19 AM
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.

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. Pennsylvania also uses black-on-yellow Clearview extensively for safe driving reminders. ("Buckle Up Next Million Miles")
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 01:46:06 PM
Pennsylvania also uses black-on-yellow Clearview extensively for safe driving reminders. ("Buckle Up Next Million Miles")

that plus the Comic Sans (or worse!) "My Reproducing Module Works Here" signs ... I want my taxpayer dollars back!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 01:47:36 PM
The designers of Clearview have however tried to promote...

for every atrocity, a lobbyist.

welcome to America, 2009.  :ded:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on November 17, 2009, 08:41:00 PM

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.

That I-96 shield was ugly, but this thing... A 3di interstate number inside a 2di width shield, and in Clearview!? I'm going to have to invent a new word, or I can just say this:

 :banghead:
 :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 09:07:40 PM
I actually really like the 24x24, 36x36, etc shields ... so if it did not have Clearview it would suit me fine.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MN/MN19886941i1.jpg)

now if only it had the state name...

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NE/NE19614801i1.jpg)

ahh, there we go!  Classic specifications, as laid out in the 1957 signing manual.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheStranger on November 17, 2009, 10:41:18 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 11:07:12 PM
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...

that font is standard Highway Gothic Series C. 

the wide shield was invented in 1962 by California because, indeed, for three-digit numbers, it was a bit less legible.  The feds put it into their 1972 specification, but before then, a lot of states were fairly slow to adopt it.  The Nebraska shield dates to about 1965.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on November 18, 2009, 01:27:04 PM
Allow me to say that I hate the wide shields (24 x 30 and similar) for ALL applications -- state, US and interstate.

I much prefer this...

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Northeast_Day_3/Images/451.jpg)

to this...

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Northeast_Day_3/Images/312.jpg)


Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 18, 2009, 01:34:01 PM
yes, wide shields tend to suck quite hardcore, especially when the state gets a new outline (Arkansas for example).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on November 18, 2009, 09:41:55 PM
IMHO I don't like either I-495 sign, though the second one looks "less wrong" to me.  Now, if they'd only shrink it back to a normal size, it would be just perfect.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 18, 2009, 11:00:47 PM
here is a classic I-495 shield.  Can't beat this design.  (Durability leaves something to be desired... but the sign is from 1958!)

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19614951i1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on November 24, 2009, 07:00:04 PM
Alabama Updates:

I found another Clearview overhead BGS:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0548.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2009, 06:46:48 AM
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?

The cost of licensing Clearview is something like $800 per workstation, so the licenses are not much more than a few bucketfuls in the oceans of consultant and contractor overhead.  The added cost of Clearview has more to do with how sign replacement is programmed.  Conversion to Clearview tends to be correlated with an approach of replacing all signs along a given length of road regardless of condition.  In Arizona, Michigan, and Texas, all of which are large-scale Clearview adopters, there have been examples of sign replacements being programmed on suspiciously short intervals soon after Clearview was adopted.

For instance, Arizona DOT wants to replace all the signs on I-19 using ARRA stimulus funds.  One motivation for this contract, other than Clearview conversion, is to replace metric units with English units, but this is something Tucson District announced it wanted to do back in 2004, and at that time it was said that the conversion back to English units would wait until the next routinely scheduled sign replacement.  It is now 2009 and the signs Arizona DOT wants to replace were all installed in 1999, so they are only 10 years old.  The signs that were installed in 1999 themselves replaced signs which were installed in 1981, and so were 18 years old.  The typical replacement interval for freeway guide signs in Arizona is between 15 and 25 years.

Ground zero for Clearview on ADOT infrastructure (Phoenix had already been using Clearview for street name signs for years) is the I-10 Poston-Hovatter signs job.  I haven't checked yet, but I think those signs were suspiciously young too (as in, installed in the mid-1990's; Poston-Hovatter was done in 2005).

Clearview is a completely new type system and its legibility advantages over the FHWA alphabet series are at a maximum when it is used in combination with advanced (and expensive) sheeting types like microprismatic sheeting.  In theory it is possible to replace signs on a piecemeal basis, through a program of auditing each individual sign for retroreflective performance, but it has proven to be very unattractive for Clearview adopters to do this--the "all or nothing" approach (which often entails premature replacement of perfectly good signs) is much more common.

My thinking is that the engineers responsible for programming sign replacements want consistency of provision at the corridor level, e.g. older signs with Series E Modified on super engineer grade or high-intensity sheeting, or brand-new signs with Clearview and microprismatic sheeting, rather than a wild melange of dark Series E Modified signs and bright Clearview signs.  The problem is that it costs money to maintain consistency when upgrading to Clearview (since you are in effect paying for the excess durability of the older Series E Modified signs) and so, from a budgetary point of view, it becomes attractive to leave the older signs out for a few more years until there is enough money to replace them all in one go.

From a risk management perspective, Clearview is not a slam dunk.  Any state DOT knows that if it continues to use Series E Modified, it is safe.  Clearview is covered by an interim approval, but that can be withdrawn if FHWA concludes that its advantages over Series E Modified are not worth continued regulatory endorsement.  If that happens, Clearview will have to be phased out on existing signing and the phasing-out costs will mirror those of phasing out Series E Modified in favor of Clearview.  Hence, you get lots of states like Kansas and California which have Clearview approvals on the books but are continuing to use Series E Modified for new signs.

Quote
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.

Some observations:

*  This practice is not covered by the current interim approval (which is for positive-contrast signing only).

*  If Kentucky is using all-uppercase on these signs, it is forfeiting the legibility advantage of Clearview, which is based on legend being rendered in mixed-case (Clearview has a higher loop height for the same height of uppercase legend compared to Series E Modified).

*  If Kentucky is using the Clearview W series rather than B series for these signs, that is another no-no from the standpoint both of legibility and aesthetics.

My heart sinks every time I see construction plans which call for W-series Clearview against light backgrounds.  I can only hope these designs are corrected before the signs are fabricated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 01:46:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
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).

I wouldn't expect you personally to observe a huge advantage in Clearview.

First, you are young, and Clearview has its highest legibility values relative to Series E Modified for older drivers.

Second, the advent of Clearview in Texas coincided with a move to using microprismatic rather than high-intensity sheeting on guide signs.  TxDOT started its massive changeover to retroreflective sheeting on guide signs in the late 1990's, and several huge Interstate sign replacements went forward with Series E Modified on high-intensity sheeting.  Clearview and microprismatic sheeting were then introduced more or less simultaneously in mid-2003.  There was a period of time when TxDOT was mixing the two type systems in its contract lettings, but it did not last long--it took just six months to go from nearly all Series E Modified to nearly all Clearview.  Therefore, there are very few Clearview signs in Texas with high-intensity sheeting, and very few Series E Modified signs with microprismatic sheeting.  This would have limited the ability to compare on an equal basis.  Again, the relative advantage of Clearview is more pronounced for more advanced sheeting types.  If you had seen Series E Modified and Clearview on the same sign with microprismatic sheeting, the Clearview might very well have stood out (even to young eyes) as less "blobby" from halation.

Quote
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.

Any sign replacement program has to confront problems of excess durability, but overall I would not say the scale of waste is that great.  A major sign refurbishment contract (taking down and replacing every sign along, say, a 50-mile length of freeway) typically costs around $2 million.  These days, in a large state like Texas or Michigan, you might be lucky to see six of those in a year--in Arizona now it is more like two or three.  There are plenty of resurfacing and bridge replacement contracts which cost as much, or more.  A simple rural interchange contract would cost around $10-$20 million.  Urban service interchanges typically cost more, and it is rare to get a major rebuild of a system interchange for under $200 million.

There has been more apparent waste in Michigan than in Texas, because Clearview sign replacements in Texas have been more likely to affect old, dilapidated button copy signs.  But even so Clearview signing hasn't really held up substantial construction in Michigan.  That is more to do with MDOT's funding shortfalls ($350 million is the number I remember from the last time MDOT tried to scare the Michigan legislature into raising the gas tax, or otherwise tackling the funding situation).

About Clearview and its aesthetics, I am more or less neutral except where the numbers and shields are concerned.  I used to hate the idea of a national conversion to Clearview, not least because I resented the thoroughly unnecessary boost to the Clearview designers' ego that this would represent.  On the other hand, its claimed advantages have withstood independent testing by tachistoscope and in the field.  Except for the odd flukes here and there, the big Clearview users have been consistent about retaining the FHWA series for shield digits.  And in Texas the conversion to Clearview was also used as a platform for moving from 6" all-uppercase Series D to mixed-case Clearview (8" uppercase) on D-series guide signs without significantly expanding sign panel area.  This is beneficial for motorists like me who avoid rural Interstates and, as the price for peace and quiet, have had to put up with sign letter heights less than half those used on rural freeways.

Personally, I think Clearview is considerably more attractive than, say, the traffic typefaces used in Turkey and Poland.  Polish "Drogowskaz" oversells its utilitarian function by frantically avoiding any appearance of aesthetic regularity, while the kerning in the main Turkish traffic alphabet is so wide it unintentionally emphasizes the message--when you drive past a sign which says "1 0 0 0 0   N ü f ü s," you know you have been told the population is ten thousand.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2009, 03:04:35 PM
two million dollars here, two million dollars there - pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.  I for one have had only three instances of problems reading old button copy signs.  

1) in Texas, where the shields were entirely non-reflective.  That is not a button-copy problem, it is a problem that could be solved with button copy.  I have no idea why Texas changed sometime in the 70s from button copy shields to non-reflective shields on signs with button copy legend.

2) North Dakota.  Some combination of fog and cold weather results in the first few signs on I-29 coming in from SD being completely illegible at night in adverse weather.  The buttons no longer reflect (likely because they are fogged or iced over), and instead random protuberances on the letter and sign - bolts, edges, etc, do catch occasional glint.  I have no idea what they did so wrong.

3) Connecticut using button copy on a retroreflective background with outline shields.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  

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.

so, given that the other 47 states are fine (yes, even California porcelain; it just needs to be washed every so often), this idea of sign replacement every 2-3 years just as a matter of policy strikes me as complete and utter waste.  

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.

I don't mind Poland's type.  The ugliest typeface has to be Helvetica, which has absolutely no business being used on highway signs.  Or "Daddy Grotesk", whatever that type is for "Slow Down, my Daddy Works Here" which makes Comic Sans look like a serious effort.

Quote
"1 0 0 0 0   N ü f ü s,"

and a few old soreheads.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2009, 03:26:07 PM
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.

That is actually due to condensation on the sign surface and I think it is a problem of retroreflective materials in general.  I am personally not convinced button copy is free from this particular problem.

Quote
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.

That has been out of court for quite a while (MUTCD requires retroreflectorization or illumination to maintain similar appearance by night as by day).  Plus, the MUTCD now has a retroreflectivity provision which requires signs to be replaced when their retroreflectivity is not up to scratch.  This includes signs which look perfectly good by day but which, for one reason or another (e.g. bruised sheeting), just don't work at night.

Quote
Or even microprismatic HI on engineer grade green.

High-intensity sheeting is dirt-cheap now, so that is what Arizona DOT uses with white microprismatic sheeting for legend etc.

Quote
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.

Where did you see nonreflective green in Kansas?  I thought we got rid of the last of that ages ago.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on December 01, 2009, 09:23:40 PM
More Clearview from Birmingham:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0636.jpg)

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0637.jpg)

I'm not sure what font these shields are in:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0573.jpg)

And for your viewing pleasure:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0558.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 02, 2009, 02:39:14 AM
Negative 1st Avenue. Awesome.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on December 02, 2009, 06:32:40 AM
^^ Looks like ALDOT is replacing all older button-copy signage with the Clearview signs along US 31/Red Mountain Expressway.

ALDOT has also put up gas/food/lodging signs up along US 78/Future I-22 around Jasper that use clearview.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on December 02, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
There's ongoing construction on the Bronx River Parkway in southern Westchester County.

The County DPW is showing its 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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: City on December 02, 2009, 07:28:35 PM
Negative 1st Avenue. Awesome.

Where is it? I don't see a -1st Street on any of these pictures.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on December 02, 2009, 08:21:11 PM
Negative 1st Avenue. Awesome.

Where is it? I don't see a -1st Street on any of these pictures.

He's referring to the "US 78 / 3rd-4th Ave S" exit direction sign in the last photo, interpreting the dash as a minus sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 02, 2009, 09:16:56 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on December 02, 2009, 10:27:38 PM
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
I 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...
Im actually becoming more fond of highway gothic, which I know is the exact opposit of what I said in the very first post of this thread.
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on December 02, 2009, 10:45:06 PM
There's ongoing construction on the Bronx River Parkway in southern Westchester County.

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:
My eyes!  My eyes!   :crazy:
I'm sorry but that sign looks absolutely hideous!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on December 02, 2009, 11:23:34 PM
Hey, if you think that's hideous, check out the gore point sign:
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6536/dscn6090.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on December 03, 2009, 01:40:09 PM
I've seen some strange signs around NY but that one takes the cake! :-o
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on December 03, 2009, 02:08:23 PM
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

Agreed.  The Clearview numbers are bad, especially the 6 and the 9.  The letters are tolerable, but the "g" needs a trim, and the "l" could do without the tail.  I don't mind the tail so much on the "y".  The capital Clearview letters though, IMHO, look pretty decent.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: exit322 on December 03, 2009, 02:50:48 PM
And a good reason Clearview is catching on:

My wife works in downtown Akron and takes the part of I-77 three days a week where the Clearview signs were posted.  When they first started going up, she said to me, "they're putting up new signs on 77, and they're a lot easier to read when driving through."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on December 03, 2009, 04:05:16 PM
"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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on December 03, 2009, 04:35:32 PM
"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:

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on December 04, 2009, 12:41:47 AM
^^ Looks like ALDOT is replacing all older button-copy signage with the Clearview signs along US 31/Red Mountain Expressway.

You would be correct.  I noticed most of them 2 weeks ago.  There have been a few put up over the past few days.  An interesting thing is that the last sign I posted, the 8th Ave S is still in button copy. 




Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on December 04, 2009, 01:06:42 AM
I'm Speechless!  :-o
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on December 04, 2009, 12:52:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on December 04, 2009, 09:45:29 PM
There's ongoing construction on the Bronx River Parkway in southern Westchester County.

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:
My eyes!  My eyes!   :crazy:
I'm sorry but that sign looks absolutely hideous!

That's an understatement.This sign makes me want to rip the eyes from my sockets and throw it in the street so I won't have to look at it.  X-(
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on December 05, 2009, 01:35:56 PM
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.

You personally may not have seen it in a test like this, but keep in mind that there was extensive research done that did show a significant increase in legibility (at same font size and reflectivity), especially among older drivers. The font was designed by engineers for legibility, not necessarily aesthetics.

If you're interested, the FHWA Interim Approval summarizes some of the research and the results, and provides citations if you're really motivated to dig up the papers:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm

The ClearviewHwy company includes a great writeup explaining the development of the font, including some of the testing that was done:
http://clearviewhwy.com/ResearchAndDesign/index.php

And this NY Times article is also a good read about the new font
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12fonts-t.html

Again, I'm not saying it's necessarily a nice looking font, but it IS more readable, regardless of what your gut feeling may be.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 06, 2009, 03:02:47 PM
It is also worth noting that the type community does not see aesthetics the way we road enthusiasts do.  Formally Series E Modified, and the FHWA alphabet series in general, are what are called neo-grotesque typefaces:  i.e., relatively recently designed sans-serif typefaces where the stroke width is more or less uniform throughout the letter.  (Typefaces with this characteristic are also often called gothic, hence the common name "Highway Gothic" for the FHWA alphabet series.)  In contradistinction, the Clearview typefaces are examples of what are called humanist typefaces, which are sans-serif typefaces where the variation in stroke width through each letter is such that the typeface has an almost calligraphic appearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-serif#Classification

The type community is full of snobs who prefer humanist typefaces over neo-grotesque and gothic typefaces, regardless of design role, because they think the greater geometric complexity equates to added sophistication and thus aesthetic appeal.  This is quite independent of the comparative field testing carried out by TTI which showed that Clearview has legibility advantages over Series E Modified which are marked for certain driver groups and for certain combinations of sheeting type.  The type snobs are not aware of this research and even if they were led to it, they would not consider it important or relevant to anything they are interested in.  From their point of view Clearview rules because it is a humanist typeface, full stop.  (While there is a case to be made for the involvement of type designers in the planning of a traffic signing system, type snobs tend to be myopic and to fail to realize that the real role of the type designer is not to design signs, but rather to develop a robust system which engineers and others not trained in typography can deploy to design signs which will both fit the context and look attractive.)

The generalization is made (including in the Wikipedia article linked to above) that humanist typefaces tend to be the most readable of the sans-serif typefaces.  This, however, is not the same as saying that a given humanist typeface is infallibly more readable than a given neo-grotesque typeface, much less that all letters in a given humanist typeface are more readable than all letters in a given neo-grotesque typeface.  Nevertheless, the type community has a monopolistic hold on the business of packaging prestige (at least for type) and tends to portray a preference for Series E Modified as showing a lack of sophistication.

Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable to prefer the look of Series E Modified, and I think there is a continuing role in traffic sign design for the FHWA alphabet series in general even if Clearview's legibility advantages are taken as a given.  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.  Right now I have an uneasy feeling that it is inertia, more than the ability to make a positive argument in favor of continuing to use it, that keeps Series E Modified appearing on signs in a majority of states.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 07, 2009, 12:08:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 07, 2009, 07:06:44 AM
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 think I may have seen the same study too--wasn't it done by TTI also?

The requirement for consistency in traffic signing has more to do with things like use of the same colors for the same meanings, same sign for same application, etc. than it does with typography.  Clearview adopters are far from alone in using typefaces from different type families on traffic signs--for instance, Spain uses Autopista (looks like Series E Modified) and Carretera Convencional (looks like Transport Heavy), while in France L1/L2 and L3/L4 (which are from different type families--L1/L2 being neo-grotesque while L3/L4 is an italic humanist face) can appear on the same sign.  Personally, I think multiple type families on the same sign can look attractive as long as the functions of the respective type families are clearly delimited, as is the case with Clearview when it is used only for white on green legend and not in shields or on "EXIT ONLY" bottom panels.  Unfortunately I haven't seen a lot of consistency on the last point--when I saw a lot of pictures of Clearview signs posted here with "EXIT ONLY" in Clearview, I went through a few old TxDOT signing contracts and realized how hit and miss it was to have the bottom panel in Series E or Series E Modified instead of Clearview.

Quote
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.

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).

My own experience is more mixed.  I have tested Clearview several times by posting Series E Modified and Clearview signs to this forum, and then trying to read them on my laptop screen from across the room.  Obviously I know what these signs say in advance, having made them myself, so it is not a pure recognition test.  There is also some divergence between seeing the signs internally illuminated on a LCD screen and seeing real signs illuminated by retroreflective sheeting at night.  Nevertheless, when I am standing against the far wall, I can't read either Clearview or Series E Modified but Clearview does look less blobby.  When I start walking slowly toward the laptop, I feel like I can see what the Clearview legend says before I can decode the identical Series E Modified legend.  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.

Quote
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.

There isn't really any difference between Clearview and the FHWA alphabet series from this point of view.  In order to secure approval from FHWA, the Clearview designers had to renounce all trademark claims.  This means that anyone is free to generate his or her own versions of the Clearview typeface for use with traffic signing software, just as is the case with the FHWA alphabet series.  The fact that no-one has come forward to do so (aside from Michael Adams, who came up with Roadgeek versions of the Clearview typefaces which he licenses only for non-commercial applications) means, I think, nothing more than that first-mover advantage is durable for computer fonts.  It can be argued (and I have so argued in the past) that the fact that the Clearview type supplement on the MUTCD website has the glyphs as rasters, while the SHS book has the FHWA alphabet series as vectors, means that the Clearview designers are attempting a form of trade-secrets protection in the Clearview supplement.  On the other hand, the resolution is high enough that fonts compiled by third parties from the Clearview supplement would approximate the "real" Clearview fonts at least as closely as the various versions of Series E Modified that are available for use with sign design software.  (There is, for example, a Series E Modified font widely used with certain design packages where the C is just wrong.  At the high-end consumer section of the market, the 5 in Page Studio Graphics' Pixymbols version of Series E Modified is just wrong.)

In regards to open-source software more generally, it is a sad fact that state DOTs use closed-source, platform-dependent software (always Windows, never Linux or any version of the Mac OS) almost exclusively, and the costs on a per-workstation basis are far in excess of the cost of a Clearview font license.  For instance, in order to do sign design you need to have specialist sign design software, all of which is closed-source and most of which is quite effectively dongle-protected.  SignCAD, for example, costs in the thousands of dollars (between $2000 and $3000 per workstation, I think).  Even a stripped-down viewer version of SignCAD which allows *.SGN files to be viewed and converted to other formats but not edited costs almost a thousand dollars.  GuidSIGN is comparable in price.  Integrating SignCAD output into construction plans takes a CAD package, and I think both MicroStation and AutoCAD are over a thousand dollars for a single-workstation license (not sure about volume discounting).  MicroStation and AutoCAD by themselves are not much use without specialist civil engineering design software, like Geopak or Inroads.  The costs don't stop there either.  Unlike consumer-grade programs like Inkscape or CorelDRAW, or even Google SketchUp, these programs are not designed to present a shallow learning curve to first-time users.  This means that anyone who trains a CAD operator, for example, has a significant training investment which a competing organization gets almost for free when it poaches the employee--usually it is the state DOT which loses out to a consultant because DOTs in general have to trade low pay for job security.

So, in short, a $600 license for Clearview is not that much when you have to buy something like $5000 worth of other software in order to get value from the $45,000 annually (not including your share of FICA, plus any other benefits like health insurance which you offer) you pay to cover the workstation seat.

It is possible to make a case for a reduction in design costs, including in design-related overheads such as the cost of software and font licenses, but I suspect that this is a relatively low priority for most state DOTs.  The mantra is to pick the low-hanging fruit first, and in the heavy civil construction sector (including highway construction) the construction phase affords the greatest scope for savings in out-turn cost.  Consultant fees for final design are typically around 5%-10% of the total construction cost, so the excess above estimate that can result from not getting competitive bids (which happens when the market for construction services shrinks to the extent that contractors are not "hungry," and bid on a "take it or leave it" basis) is often greater than the design fee.  State DOTs in general would love not to have to deal with a brain drain, but in reality this is possible only if the workload in design offices is consistent over a long period of time, which hasn't really been the case since the period of first Interstate construction.  Use of consultants tends to be on a higher percentage basis for large projects than for projects in general (in Kansas, for example, KDOT uses consultants for 70% of its design work overall, but for 100% of the major projects) because state DOTs are no longer equipped to handle step changes in workload.  Consultants can do it because they pay their employees more partly to accept a higher risk of relocation.  (Caltrans has a low level of consultant utilization because of a legal [constitutional?] requirement that plans for work on the California state highway system has to be sealed by Caltrans civil PEs, but it can be argued that the flipside is shown in chaotic project management, the high volumes of work done by local agencies and coordinated through Caltrans OSFP, large-scale project buybacks like the Bakersfield freeway network, and even Caltrans touting single-handed bridge design in its attempts to recruit new civil engineering graduates.)

To return to sign design, in principle you could use Inkscape or even CorelDRAW instead of, say, SignCAD to produce sign designs for insertion in construction plans.  There have been reports of CorelDRAW being used for sign design in Canadian design offices, where the production environment and culture is somewhat different from that prevailing in US state DOT and consultant offices.  The problem, however, is that US transportation agencies use, and require their consultants to use, expensive CAD packages because they want drawings produced to true scale, so that what is shown on the plan sheet, and what is notated in dimensioning callouts, are always in a consistent relation to each other (even for sign designs which are often notated "NTS" or "Not to scale," meaning in this case that the sheet is not necessarily drawn to an uniform scale but that the elements in each sign design are in correct proportion to each other).  This is very difficult to accomplish with commercial vector graphics packages, even when they are enhanced with custom scripts, while in a CAD program it is easier to tell when you are using dimensioning callouts which are inconsistent with something that can be built in the real world.  (In both you can make drawings that tell barefaced lies--e.g. by specifying an inner diameter for a pipe which is greater than the outer diameter--but the CAD environment is more likely to keep you honest, partly because it is easier to take measurements in a CAD program, and partly also because the major elements of most CAD drawings are actually produced in overlay programs which are specifically engineered not to produce output which is inconsistent with reality.)

I apologize for the windiness of this post and for roaming onto more general "Plan Production 101" issues, but I hope the foregoing gives some idea why I think issues like the cost of Clearview workstation licenses are oversold as reasons not to use Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 07, 2009, 11:08:46 AM
Quote
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.

For characters printed in black on a nonreflective white surface, one would expect Series E Modified to be more legible.

Having a laser printer nearby with no personal consideration for ink costs, I did the test cards in white on green background. :)


Quote
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).

If I remember correctly, I was using random control cities from I-40.

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).

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
There isn't really any difference between Clearview and the FHWA alphabet series from this point of view....

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. Massachusetts was a leader in this regard, specifying OpenDocument as the standard for office documents in state government, but Microsoft lobbied until their policy was amended to add their botched Open Office XML format as an acceptable standard. Unfortunately, I think that corporate voices carry too much power with government for change to ever be realized in this matter.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 07, 2009, 01:31:01 PM
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).

Where Clearview is concerned, by "young eyes" I mean eyes with good light sensitivity, the ability to accommodate quickly to sudden changes in lighting, and a very high tolerance for nighttime glare.

Personally, I am in my mid-thirties, so I am not (yet) middle-aged but my vision, particularly in high-demand situations like at night, is noticeably worse than it was when I was in my early twenties.  I have more trouble with glare and I won't drive in pitch-black dark if I can realistically avoid it.  And even when I was twenty, I still preferred to drive under clear skies and a full moon when I had to drive at night.  My vision has not been 20/20 since I was seven but it has long been 20/20 with corrective lenses (glasses from age 9, contact lenses from age 14, and a mixture of glasses and contact lenses since age 23).  My glasses prescription is somewhat out of date but it is still close enough that my glasses keep me ahead of the 20/40 night vision requirement for driving in Kansas.

Older drivers are susceptible to problems like dry macular degeneration which cut visual acuity.  Even if this and other causes of lost visual acuity are left out of consideration, older drivers still have to deal with a range of problems connected with normal degradation of vision, such as clouding of the lenses over time (which cuts the light that reaches the retina and can eventually require cataract surgery), a slowing in pupil reaction to change of light (the pupils in older drivers are slower to open up again when the lighting level drops), etc.  This, combined with the results of TTI's Clearview tests, leads me to think that there is something of a generation gap in Clearview acceptance--you hear lots of relatively young people who have no use for Clearview, but very few complaints about the changeover to Clearview from older people.  If I had to guess, I would say the median age of members on this board is probably in the mid- to late twenties, so I don't find it surprising that a solid majority of people on here don't care for Clearview.

Quote
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.

I could try that, except I am not sure there is a random-number generator.  I would also have to write a script to export the results to PNG to remove the effects of text rendering within the graphics program (the Roadgeek Clearview fonts are not particularly well-hinted and are best worked with at high zoom).  As it happens, I have to work on different parts of this problem, since at present I have no automatic mechanism for exporting my images to PNG.  This may be a holiday project.

Quote
That may be how the sausage is made, but I don't have to like it. :)

I don't like it either.  I particularly dislike the steep learning curve connected with anything CAD.  I just spent an hour this afternoon trying to get SignPC (a free TxDOT bolt-on program which is designed to allow you to put together basic signs in MicroStation 8.05) and I was never able to get it to produce complete text strings instead of widely spaced individual letters with little edge guides for spacing, or to figure out how to put together the different parts of the sign cell to finish the sign around the legend.  The help file was full of phrases like, "Do a fence move," "Snap to points," "Turn on level 2," etc.  Nowadays the impulse is to laugh at anyone who talks about buying a "X for dummies" book to get started with a consumer-grade program, but I am pretty sure that rather old-fashioned approach still obtains for major CAD programs because you have to have a lot of basic conceptual furniture in place just to understand what the help file is trying to tell you.

Quote
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.

The trouble with that position (which I tend to agree with in principle) is that there has to be an open-source option which offers the required functionality.  That is the case for standard "office productivity" software packages like word processors, spreadsheets, and database programs, but I do not know of a single open-source CAD program.  Also, once the agency has committed to a particular program, whether it is open- or closed-source, the agency has a lot of work (i.e., paid-for value) embedded in formats characteristic to the program in question.  This "legacy" material leads to switching costs if the standard program is changed, along with the running costs of keeping the material readable to later versions of the same program.  It is not typically possible to avoid these problems of cost and commitment unless the open-source software and open-source formats are around at the time the agency has to commit to a particular program for that application.  These have to be traded off against the significant costs in forgone efficiencies which result when an agency refuses to adopt a program for an application where no open-source alternative exists.  For instance, any state DOT which refused to adopt a closed-source CAD program would still be paying an army of draftsmen to draw construction plans by hand.

State DOTs have a mixed record in adopting open-source alternatives.  PDF, which many use for construction plans, is an open format, but it is designed to accept elements (such as images) in closed formats like TIFF.  I am personally not aware of any lossless open-source formats for bitonal image data (such as scanned construction plan sheets) which matches TIFF with CCITT Group IV compression for efficiency.  (JBIG--which I hate--and DjVu are not lossless.)  CAD programs are strictly closed-source, but I think the file formats are at least partly open.

Quote
Unfortunately, I think that corporate voices carry too much power with government for change to ever be realized in this matter.

It is a tug of war.  Open-source options are attractive for highway agencies because management of legacy material is a huge issue for them, and the openness of the source code helps guarantee against obsolescence.  On the other hand, the vendors of closed-source software have a robust business model and a steady funding stream and that gives them the resources to maintain sales pressure, e.g. by persuading their customers that they "need" features which they were quite happy to do without in the past.  A case in point is the various attempts that have been made to sell 3-D functionality to highway design professionals (it is of very doubtful value except as a way of checking coordination of horizontal and vertical curves in perspective--a friend tells me that adding 3-D attributes to an existing design is an expensive and time-consuming proposition, which is normally resorted to only when the honchos demand it specifically).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 07, 2009, 01:55:23 PM
...I do not know of a single open-source CAD program.

There is one called QCad, which I have installed on my computer once before through the Linux software repositories, but I have never used it for anything, and since I don't have any CAD experience I don't really know how it compares to professional software and really don't have much use for it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 07, 2009, 02:52:46 PM
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").

In contradistinction, the first AutoCAD release came out in 1982, while the first version of MicroStation that was not a viewer (2.0) came out in 1987.  This means a minimum 10 years when state DOTs would have had to wait for open-source CAD alternatives if they didn't want to buy into closed-source programs.

There are a couple of programs called FreeCAD or some variants thereof, but both were designed single-handed and are oriented toward design of 3-D solids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CAD_software

MicroStation, it turns out, has an interesting history:  it was originally a viewer (PseudoStation) for design files produced using Intergraph's Interactive Computer Graphics Design System, which required expensive, high-end VAX workstations.  (Who uses VAX anymore?)  PseudoStation allowed users to use a PC instead, the savings being so high that the Bentley brothers were able to sell a decent number of copies at their asking price of $7,943.  This prompted them to develop their own PC-based CAD package which would incorporate functionality from the ICGDS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroStation

Intergraph has been around since 1969 and is of military origin.  The original motivation for developing computer graphics capability was to allow visualization of missile trajectories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergraph

Wikipedia says that the development of PC-based CAD allowed companies to replace four or five draftsmen with a single CAD operator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design

I am pretty sure that computerization of highway design (though not of plans production) began in the US in the late 1950's/early 1960's with the use of punch-card machines for optimization of earth-moving.  Pen plotters were also available by the late 1960's at latest, and around 1970 MnDOT started plotting designs for freeway guide signs (for insertion in construction plans sets) which were pattern-accurate except for the route shields.  I think these designs must have been generated through key entry at a dumb screen terminal (then a new technology), or possibly even with punch cards.  I understand that the remote ancestor of the current SignCAD program is the collection of routines which MnDOT used to confect freeway guide sign designs, and that the current SignCAD company is a spinoff/privatization which retains close links to MnDOT.

It was actually not all that common for state DOTs to prepare pattern-accurate sign designs before about 2000, when the required functionality became easily accessible within signing CAD packages.  Before then, what designers typically expected from a signing CAD program was a set of drawings showing correct positioning of shields and legend on each sign panel.  In the age of demountable copy, it was not strictly necessary to have the correct outline of a given letter:  all that was needed was the correct location of a consistent reference point such as the top left of the letter.  Quite a few designers and state DOTs discounted the ability of pattern-accurate sign designs to serve as a quick visual check on the fabricated sign.  Instead, they prepared dimensioned sign sketches, and relied on secondary guidance (such as sign drawings books and spacing tables for the various traffic sign alphabets) to ensure the signs were correctly fabricated.

A few states did bother with pattern-accurate sign designs and a variety of techniques were used to produce them.  One common approach was to form the letters on little pieces of paper, which were attached in the correct positions using rubber cement; the finished result was sent out for reproduction.  I think this technique was used by Arizona DOT and Nevada DOT in the late 1950's/early 1960's, by MnDOT through the 1960's, and by PennDOT from the late 1950's to the mid-1980's.  It was also possible to buy lettering stencils with the correct outlines of the individual letters in the traffic sign alphabets, and these were used by Arizona DOT from about 1965 to about 1985, when CAD took over.  The I-10/I-17 stack in Phoenix was probably the last major Arizona DOT project to have hand-drawn sign design sheets.

The list of states which I know didn't bother with pattern-accurate sign design sheets in the pre-2000 "dark ages" is rather long--CA, OR, WA, KS, OK, TX, MO, MI, OH, KY (Kentucky Turnpike was the only one which did have pattern-accurate sign design sheets--using pre-1948 unrounded typefaces, no less), NC, GA, FL, and MS.  Many of these states did have pattern-accurate standard plan sheets, which often (as in the case of MI) used idiosyncratic typefaces with glyphs for some letters and digits which failed to match the FHWA standards.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on December 17, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
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).


I have found that PA has been keeping the FHWA numbers, while replacing the letters with Clearview. 

The newer Clearview signs in PA look much better than the old ones do!  The new signage on I-376 looks good.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2009, 06:16:10 PM
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").

Not to stray off topic, but 3-D in AutoCAD can be very useful.  Or Microstation, which also supports it.  Right now you have vertical information stored in project files that are then imported for graphs and elevations.  Why not simply have a 3-D file with the elevations built in?  I think now that CAD programs have been 3D for a number of years, standards will start to come around to incorporate that functionality.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wytout on December 21, 2009, 02:06:21 PM
Hadn't driven northbound on 9 in a while in CT lately.  When I saw this I almost threw up on my shoes.  I had to go back around for a shot.  It must be very new.  It's the last NB exit at Corbin's Corner just before the northern CT-9 Terminus at I-84E/W.

(http://www.wytout.com/personal/clearviewfilth.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on December 22, 2009, 11:55:48 PM
Here in Ontario I've only seen around 3 BGSs done by MTO in clearview probably as a test. The rest that I've seen installed this year are all still done in FHWA. The City of Toronto loves clearview though, they use clearview on all their BGSs and street name signs.  

Here's a pic of a clearview sign from onthighways.com:

(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7177/qewdv12feb.jpg)
Look like MTO still uses FHWA for the numbers like everyone else.

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 23, 2009, 12:28:29 AM

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

I think that website just crashed my firefox :/

sounds like appropriate behavior for a Clearview page!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on December 24, 2009, 12:12:18 AM
Yeah I should have put a Clearview warning before posting that link. Anyways I will miss the old series EM font if MTO decides to use Clearview but at least it doesn't look as bad as Toronto clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on December 29, 2009, 11:15:06 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on December 29, 2009, 03:19:20 PM
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:

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2009, 06:02:13 PM
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.

thanks for the propaganda, fellers.  My tax dollars at work.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2009, 06:05:35 PM
that said, the one thing that Clearview does do better than Highway Gothic is differentiate the Series E equivalent number 6 and 4.  I once got a speeding ticket because I was driving into the sun and I misread a half-knocked-down Speed Limit 45 as Speed Limit 65.  (hey, every other construction zone on I-40 in AZ was 65... the very last one before the California state line? 45.) 

They ticketed me for 51 in a 45, despite the fact that I pointed out that the sign was bent sufficiently backwards as to be illegible.  Virginia plates on the rental car; they knew I couldn't afford to fly back to butt-ass Arizona to contest the citation. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PAHighways on December 29, 2009, 08:07:26 PM
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)

I don't know why this is news considering Clearview signs have been showing up around the area and state since the beginning of the decade.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 29, 2009, 08:57:45 PM
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.   It grows on you after a while, I think.

What bothers me is lack of consistency.   Clearview at DFW is nice, because it's ALL Clearview.   Random Clearview signs popping up in Highway Gothic land, however, are much like running nails across a chalkboard.

The economics of highway sign replacement being what they are...I'm resigned to being annoyed for a few years...at least until Clearview dominates and the few remaining Highway Gothic signs can be enjoyed as relics of yesteryear.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2009, 09:03:34 PM

After I recovered from several days of tracing the characters, I found that I didn't hate Clearview. 

I still hate the fact that it has a non-uniform stroke width.  In general a non-uniform stroke width may be all right, but only if the font around it is designed well.  Clearview is not designed well - and all I see is the bulges and the narrow straits where the font decided that it needed to change its stroke width based on some obscure study that threw aesthetics in the garbage. 

the fact is, the best-looking highway sign fonts (FHWA 1926, FHWA 1948, Transport (Britain), Mittelschrift (Germany)) - they are all of uniform stroke width. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on December 30, 2009, 07:45:30 AM
the fact is, the best-looking highway sign fonts (FHWA 1926, FHWA 1948, Transport (Britain), Mittelschrift (Germany)) - they are all of uniform stroke width. 

I will have to admit that I have never had any problem reading Mittelschrift fonts at night as opposed to Highway Gothic, when the former is presented in a large-enough font size.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on December 30, 2009, 03:16:49 PM
I'm currently in Central Texas - we drove down from WNY this weekend.

I have to say, the Clearview signs have really helped during the nighttime - most of Arkansas' signage along IH 30 is in Clearview now.

When done right (see AR & TX) - I could get used to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 30, 2009, 05:00:07 PM
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...

I think the major technological improvement that needs to be done is not playing with the fonts, but making sure that at dawn hours (say 4am to 6am) the standards in place actively are sufficient to break the ice.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/Iowa_69.jpg)

can you tell what road leads to Des Moines?  Or what the destination city is of US-65 and US-69 south?  I barely can... and that is an enhanced photo with the contrast bumped up to 340%... (3.4x as sharp difference between black and white compared to what you see on the actual highway).  trust me, when you are driving past this gantry, you have no idea what the signs say because the frost at 4am on a November morning has made the sign gantry illegible.  I took this photo at 6:06am local time (well past when rush hour starts!) and I had to bump up the contrast to 340% - when you are driving past the sign, it is 100% and you cannot read the shields.

And this has nothing to do with the font (Clearview vs. Highway Gothic) - the signs are just plain frosted over, and no amount of Clearview can fix that.  

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on December 31, 2009, 09:48:46 AM
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.

As usual, you make a good argument....and thanks for the photo...I think that helps illustrate your point.  And I absolutely won't dispute the fact that there is a separate and outstanding issue with reflective signs and icing. 

However, the point that I'm making is that the font does make a difference in night-time legibility sans ice coverage.  The studies seem to show (and based upon my own personal experience I would have to agree) that the Clearview font (especially when presented in a larger font size than the old button-copy implementations) is more effectively comprehended at a glance than the Highway Gothic font.  Therefore, I would have to say that regardless of whether or not there is icing on the reflective signs, the font legibility is higher when presented in a Clearview font vs. a Highway Gothic font. 

Now, with that said, I will be the first to submit Kentucky as an example of where a larger font-size usage of Highway Gothic font lettering can be just as effective for me personally for legibility.  I have no issue reading Kentucky's new interstate signage, which I believe is still Highway Gothic on retroreflective signs, but in a larger-than-normal font-size.   Problem is though...if we're going to be replacing smaller font-size signage with something larger...why not do it in Clearview, which seems to have a higher legibility rate?  But this whole issue is separate from the one you mention, which is related to reflectivity and icing conditions...not font, right?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on December 31, 2009, 02:36:54 PM

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.

That is more of an argument for retaining highway sign lighting than a font issue. I contest that in areas with frost and areas with a lot of dew (especially on the Gulf Coast during the winter months), that lighting should be used. I know that in the Delaware MUTCD, sign lighting is mentioned, but the state removes fixtures when replacing signs, because the MUTCD indicates that if reflectivity is sufficient enough, lighting is not required. However there are many times, Clearview or not, that signs are harder to read because of condensation.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 31, 2009, 02:39:13 PM
yeah, the icing has nothing to do with the font - a Clearview font sign would ice up just as badly if made with the same materials (aluminum, vinyl, etc).  

if the studies say Clearview is easier to read than EM then that's what they say... question is, is it so much easier to read that it's worth the tax money to develop the font, do the testing, and replace signs by the thousands?  I do not believe that to be the case.  There are other technological improvements that could be made to signage that would have a much greater bang for the buck, like solving the icing problem - or, alternately, just not using the money for signage when other aspects of the infrastructure are in need of improvement.  

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheStranger on December 31, 2009, 09:42:40 PM


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.

There's a simple answer for "why would California throw money at signs and not interchange fixes?" - the latter probably requires environmental impact statements, long gestation process, hearings (and hearing out complaints from nearby property owners), etc.  the former probably simply requires "going into the budget, and maybe a brief runthrough of how much it'll cost", and then putting the new sign up there.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 31, 2009, 10:25:16 PM
or alternately they could just not spend the money that they continue to not have
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 31, 2009, 11:42:30 PM
Regarding the condensation problem, I understand dew-resistant films are available to address it.  I also wonder if another possibility might be to move toward plastic sign substrates, which might dew up less easily and also be less attractive to metal thieves.

Comparing a sign rehabilitation job (which might top out at $2 million) to a major interchange improvement (probably $100 million or more in the case of the East Los Angeles Interchange) isn't really useful.  The reasons for this have to do with the disparities in cost, timescales for obligation of funding and project development, and relation of project rate of return to project scale which prompt state DOTs to program operational improvements (like sign rehabilitations, minor resurfacings, etc.) separately from major projects.

Looking more closely at this specific case:

The sign replacement has a project development cycle of about three years, and a total project lifecycle of perhaps 20 years or so.  It is not inherently complex (i.e., does not require in-depth investigations like traffic studies, and qualifies for CE since it occurs on existing infrastructure), so benefit, cost, and payoff period are all easily defined.

In the case of the East LA Interchange, the scoping process alone would probably take at least three years.  This is because you have to define the minimum parameters of an improvement that will deliver benefits that feed through to the wider economy, as opposed to--say--moving a bottleneck to the next interchange along.  This requires in-depth investigations, including traffic and origin/destination studies.  Also, because the East LA Interchange is a system interchange, this means that the minimum improvement is probably quite large, costing well over $100 million.  (The East LA Interchange has been around in close to its current form since the mid-1960's, so the available opportunities for small-scale operational improvements have been pretty well exhausted.)  You also have to have discussions with affected interests (adjoining communities, haulage interests, and other "stakeholders," to use the current jargon) to gauge their attitudes towards potential improvements and what the impacts are likely to be for them in terms of traffic, drainage, etc.  It takes time to work through these issues, compile environmental documentation, draw up construction plans, and then do the construction.  Given Caltrans' current project development methods, I wouldn't expect a major change to the East LA Interchange to have a project development cycle of less than 20 years.  This is approximately the same as the lifetime that could be expected from new signs installed in a sign rehabilitation contract.

Part of the reason for disentangling large and small projects when programming is to make sure that small projects which can deliver welfare for the motoring public at a good rate of return are not held up indefinitely in favor of some grand project which is supposed to solve all traffic problems forevermore but is subject to a project development process of uncertain length, is of uncertain scope, and delivers an uncertain rate of return.  It is a way for the state DOT to keep a diversified portfolio, in a manner of speaking.

Moreover, it is useful to have a stock of small projects in the hopper which can be readied for contract letting quickly in order to accommodate abrupt changes (either down or up) in funding levels.  Small projects can be rushed in to plug the breach left by rescinded funding for a major project, while (as we saw with ARRA) they are essentially the only things that can be developed from scratch quickly enough to meet within-the-year contract letting deadlines.

In regards to the benefits that can be expected from sign replacement contracts, it has to be noted that porcelain signs are not "perfectly good" from a strictly economic standpoint.  They are highly durable, which allows their somewhat higher initial cost to be paid out over long periods of time, so that they can cost less per year of service life than other types of signing.  However, especially at night, they provide a distinctly inferior service to motorists.  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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on December 31, 2009, 11:49:38 PM
Clearview has invaded Quebec along A-55!

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.453207,-71.95796&spn=0,359.888506&z=14&layer=c&cbll=45.453091,-71.957882&panoid=JpEb6CzxaNi050TXL_ky6A&cbp=12,162.86,,0,2.37 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.453207,-71.95796&spn=0,359.888506&z=14&layer=c&cbll=45.453091,-71.957882&panoid=JpEb6CzxaNi050TXL_ky6A&cbp=12,162.86,,0,2.37)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 31, 2009, 11:51:28 PM
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?  

also, all this accomodating 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 01, 2010, 12:06:35 AM
hmm, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that similar-appearance requirement?  what are the benefits of having that?

Basically, instant recognition of signs by type.  

Quote
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.

The issue is not one of drivers not being able to see the signs--it is more one of making the highway environment as forgiving as possible for older drivers.  The changes that get pushed (not just Clearview, but also things like wider stripes) typically deliver benefits for most age groups, but tend to be more beneficial to older drivers.  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.  Deer don't usually wander onto urban freeways, etc.

The tradeoff is between making relatively low-cost improvements which extend the ability of elderly drivers to stay in charge of their own transport, versus the significantly higher costs of keeping them out of transport poverty through some kind of subsidized transit provision, or the even higher costs (including the hidden cost of accelerated mental deterioration) of moving them early into assisted-living centers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 01, 2010, 12:29:42 AM
Quote
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 do not agree with this statement.  Deer were just one example of potential hazards; there are plenty of other hazards on urban freeways (other cars, mainly) whose presence is not mitigated by better signage.  

the driving environment is, by definition, not forgiving.  And to make some aspects of it forgiving while leaving other aspects precisely as dangerous as they were before, we are encouraging drivers to take to the road when "oh, I can't read the button copy signs anymore" would have been a tipoff that they are no longer competent as drivers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 02, 2010, 10:11:00 PM
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...

I woke up this morning in Texarkana, Texas, and headed west on I-30 before dawn on my way to the DFW area. There was frost this morning and many of the signs along I-30, many of them newer installations, were very hard to read because of the frost. Usually I can get decent photos with a flash that will show the sign, but not this morning. I will have to post some of my efforts to show how much the cold temperature had affected their legibility before dawn.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 04, 2010, 01:31:31 AM
I saw this today heading to a relative's house. :pan:

EDIT:Link was linked to wrong thing. :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on January 04, 2010, 05:22:26 PM
On the way back to Nashville today, I saw that the southernmost exit of I-65 in KY, Exit 2 for US 31 to Franklin, KY now has Clearview signs.  As it was still dark and I was dead tired and needing to get back, I have no photos of it yet.

Hopefully it won't cross the border into TN!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 05, 2010, 12:28:51 AM
Crap the link came out wrong.

EDIT:Ok try this one:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Orange,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.732051,89.824219&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Orange,+California&ll=33.786495,-117.878881&spn=0.010468,0.02193&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.786216,-117.880107&panoid=RVMUy2_2uopoMarVOo1oQA&cbp=12,181.67,,0,6.23

Caltrans put a green strip for "Santa Ana" that's Clearview.First time I've seen Clearview in the wild.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 05, 2010, 12:23:22 PM
Hey, I'm a newbie here, but I would have joined a year ago had I known about this place! I've been waiting for something better than the boards on the Usenet which I seldom read anymore. 

Anyway, I'm a Clearview hater myself.  Well, hater of about 60% of it, the lowercase and the numbers.   They just look bad to me.  Why could they not have just gone with the modified Highway Gothic I've seen in some cities? 

Down in Fort Collins, CO, where I lived for many years, they also switched to Clearview on their street signs, but the city has never used lowercase, just ALL CAPS on their signs, plus they still use FHWA numbers most of the time.  I have no problem with those. 

Here in Wyoming they have been using Clearview since 2007, mixed case, plus numbers.  :crazy:  but their usage of it really varies.   Since WYDOT puts an plain date code on their signs it's easy to tell how old they are, and I still see new signs in Highway Gothic.  But Wyoming has always had a wild mix of typefaces on their signs,and I don't know why.  I'm not complaining though, I'm happy it's not (yet) turned into total replacement.    I mean, in the last year, I've seen new exit/gore signs in Series D, Series E and Clearview:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/2009GoreSigns.jpg)


Still, as time goes by and I see more and more of it here in Wyoming, I'm starting to get used to Clearview. I still don't like the look of it, as others have said, that lowercase L looks horrible.  But from a far distance they do seem to be perhaps a little bit more legible, but that could also very well be due to the fact the they are still bright shiny new signs. 

My "favorite" one so far around Wyoming is this one with a messed up "y" in Cheyenne:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/I80Sidney1-4Mile.jpg)

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on January 05, 2010, 06:51:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 05, 2010, 07:38:45 PM
in the case of that animation, the Clearview is more legible, because the FHWA variant is too bold (the E has hardly any hole in it).  But that is a more attractive font; the Clearview hooked "1", curved "l", and pregnant "d" just look silly!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on January 05, 2010, 07:50:34 PM
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'm with you. I do generally like Clearview better, although it's not necessarily for aesthetics. I like to see innovation with our highways, and (as we discussed earlier in the thread), studies did show better legibility in some cases, and similar in others.

And for what it's worth, I do like the lowercase 'l'. Growing up, I was taught to write with tails on letters like 'l', and it always bugged me how "Ill." on signs looked like "III" or "lll" since the capital I in the FHWA font didn't have horizontal strokes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 05, 2010, 08:17:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 05, 2010, 08:26:45 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 05, 2010, 08:59:50 PM
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!

The Problem with the numbers is they are too "broad" (for lack of a better term.) The curves of number(9 and 6 in particular) don't flow with each other.The numbers seem like they have been "stretched" to point that it creates an ugly shape.

Look at my example, I used a red line to demonstrate:
(http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo58/PanzerVIZeke/I-96CVvsSH.jpg)

Notice how in the standard font, the curves of the 9 and 6 seem in perfect alignment.The curves aren't bent as much, creating a sexy look.The Clearview numbers looks some nightmare between the "box" look(like the old US Routes signs in AgentSteel's Avatar) and the standard look.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 05, 2010, 09:09:56 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2010, 09:44:07 PM
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/66.jpg)

First exit north of the Indiana state line in Michigan.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on January 05, 2010, 09:55:03 PM
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/66.jpg)

First exit north of the Indiana state line in Michigan.

Ah yes, they've done that on that whole section from Indiana to I-96.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 05, 2010, 11:08:03 PM
That I-69 sign would look beautiful if it used standard numbers...

I really like the Clearview directional, where even though "SOUTH" is all upper-case the S is still bigger than the rest of the word.This makes sense though, as Clearview was designed to be mixed case anyway.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on January 05, 2010, 11:34:22 PM
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)


This is one of the best for legibility (Kentucky uses much larger font size on their shields)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S0QSGU4mfqI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/koP70Im4jl8/s912/IMG_1260.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on January 05, 2010, 11:41:40 PM
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 passed this sign Sunday night (1/3) and had NO TROUBLE reading it!  I also passed by the other sign as well.  And, it was legible, too.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on January 06, 2010, 12:32:45 AM
Alabama update:

The 8th Ave S signs in button copy on the Red Mountain Expressway have been replaced with this.

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_1019.jpg)

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_1020.jpg)

I would like the signs better if they would spell out University, but that would not work with the existing sign bridges.  Besides, 8th Ave S has not existed in Birmingham for a long time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on January 06, 2010, 01:02:29 AM
I agree that the numbers are terrible.  However, look at the following two examples.

Here's TERRIBLE (illegible at night as well)
I see nothing wrong with that I-275 shield.  Interstate shields with that sized numbers are pretty common in California...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images280/i-280_nb_exit_005b_07.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_nb_exit_045a_01.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 06, 2010, 03:07:14 AM
Coming into Cheyenne the other day, I saw a BGS in the far distance and thought to myself "Wow, when did they do that sign in E-Modified?" but as I got closer I realized it was one of the new Clearview signs.  In the far distance the way the light scattered the thinner CV typeface, it looked bolder than it was.  I had to laugh at myself on that one.    But those are pretty new signs... I'd like to see how well these signs look after they get older and dirtier. 

I'm not a big fan of button copy - in its time it did its job, but I can see why it was discontinued once better reflective materials were developed.  ( 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.)    But the E-Modified typeface that goes hand-in-hand with button copy, I've always thought it looked somewhat, well, awkward.  The standard EM kerning (spacing between letters) and between words never had a good feel to it for me. And that is with or without the buttons.   

Speaking of awkward kerning, several years ago I decided I wanted the various FHWA highway Gothic letterings as computer fonts, and before I stumbled across the Roadgeek fonts, I was in the process of authoring up my own.  Before I finished though, I found the Roadgeek ones... and well, I combined those with the work I had already done.  Keeping my settings as far as metrics, kerning and spacing though.  I wanted a computer font that worked good to make usable lettering on the screen and in documents, and not to make my own Road signs.   Also, I went the "Extended View" route and incorporated some of the opened up features in like the " a e, s, b and d" to name a few, that I'd seen on signs in Cheyenne and in some Denver suburbs, and in pre-clearview Iowa, among other places. Mostly in the Series D and E, which are the ones I worked on the most and the ones I find most suitable for the computer and for documents.  Had to rework some of the punctuation symbols as well.

But I never plan on using any Clearview fonts on my computer - I mean, while I have the Roadgeek ones, I never touch them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 06, 2010, 09:15:45 AM
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!

Here's a NY 96:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_6zDqXUkKvc0/SHkSqJyRuoI/AAAAAAAAAHM/K9-9Jy0w49c/s800/100_1314.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hm insulators on January 06, 2010, 11:20:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2010, 11:31:44 AM
that NY 96 has standard Series F - I'm looking for an older shield with the NY custom font ...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2010, 11:38:39 AM
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.

China is still stuck on glass cateyes!  :-D  I have ordered some from there but I can make my own glass for much cheaper.  Sorry, China!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on January 06, 2010, 06:31:22 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2010, 06:44:02 PM

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:

I just happen to disagree on their level of dysfunction.  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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheStranger on January 06, 2010, 06:54:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2010, 06:59:11 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on January 06, 2010, 09:52:39 PM
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.)
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on January 09, 2010, 02:25:41 PM
One more clearview sign:
(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_1030.jpg)

On an interesting note the previous sign here only mentioned Highland Ave and not Arlington Ave.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on January 10, 2010, 12:19:38 AM
Here's one of the latest Toronto clearview sign in my area:
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1218/dscn5004.jpg)

Which replaced this one with a cut off portion during mid-late 2009:
(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6606/gardinerexpwywestyongep.jpg)
In my opinion I like the spacing on the older sign better.
(picture from google streetview)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on January 12, 2010, 02:23:48 PM
I was out last night in an area where both Cleaview and FHWA fonts are signed (Central PA) while it was snowing, I've determined that Clearview is easier to read in the dark and/or in bad weather.  It pains me to say it, but Clearview is growing on me.

The e and t (e's look like o's and t's look like other tall letters) are much easier to read imo.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on January 13, 2010, 09:41:52 PM
I <GASP> spotted the first Clearview signs in Tennessee.

Actually realized is the correct word in that I've passed these signs dozens of times without realizing it.  (Denial I guess.  :-D)

They are at one, possibly two intersections in Franklin, TN traffic lights for the street names.  (BTW The street signs in Franklin have multiple fonts depending on where they are.)

Since this appears to be a city installation, the BGSs maintained by TDOT are safe for now.

I'll get and post a picture as soon as I can.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on January 13, 2010, 11:00:50 PM
^ I think the street name sign for McEwen Drive off of I-65 sports Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on January 14, 2010, 12:04:51 AM
Here is the blue clearview service sign along Corridor X mentioned earlier.

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0965.jpg)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on January 14, 2010, 01:01:09 AM
^ I think the street name sign for McEwen Drive off of I-65 sports Clearview.

I'll take a closer look the next time I'm by that way.  (might even be an hour or so from now)  The signs on McEwen Drive itself are also maintained by the city of Franklin.

There's also a few unisigns there and downtown I need to grab images of.

EDIT:
I didn't have time to stop today, but I did give it a look see as I went by and I think you may be right.  However, the size of the letters for the street name relative to the sign size is smaller than the one at Hillsboro Rd. and DelRio Pike.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on January 15, 2010, 02:31:17 PM
NYSDOT posted Clearview signs for Half Acre Road just west of Auburn in an intersection reconstruction this past fall.  :ded:  I hope it's an isolated incident.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 15, 2010, 03:23:22 PM
Is it at least better looking than the ones on the Thruway?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 15, 2010, 06:47:40 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on January 15, 2010, 09:33:16 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on January 15, 2010, 09:36:14 PM
I still like the Clearview text best although I would agree that I'm not crazy about the numerals.  Especially the 135. 

The Clearview 135 is the only part of that sign that I like better.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 15, 2010, 09:48:35 PM
lol, well to each their own, but having a white FHWA shield in that Loop I-25 and a Clearview exit number 135 just clash for me.  And I definatetly do NOT want to see shields in Clearview!  (http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif)  ;-)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 16, 2010, 12:41:52 PM
For some reason I don't mind the Clearview numerals, though I agree they shouldn't be on shields.  But why the exit number change on that sign?

Also, could you possibly put them side-by-side instead of using an animated GIF?  My brain prefers more than half a second to compare differences.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 16, 2010, 01:12:38 PM
I said it previously, it's not actually the same sign - it's the same business loop, different signs.   They replaced the northbound sign a few years ago (one of the first CV signs I'd seen in WY) but not the southbound one.  I was playing around with a new camera the other day and got a nice clear shot of the NB one, so I decided to go out and get a pic of the SB one yesterday to see how it compared.  It was so similar that making that animated gif out of it was easy.  It was only because they were so similar that I animated it.  I try to save bandwidth all the time and I could have posted those individually with half the file size.

Actually, I was also thinking earlier that half second lag was too short, and was going to change it to longer.  (Which I just did, to 1.5 seconds - however it may not load that way if your computer or server caches images.)  

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on January 16, 2010, 01:50:48 PM
The numbers definitely look better when they are not on the shields.Still love the Clearview letters though.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on January 17, 2010, 03:07:03 AM
Okay, here's another photo, but no animation this time!

Last year, I posted the following to the misc.transport.road newsgroup, if it looks familiar to you.   

=========================

That brings me to this topic.....  When an Exit/gore sign at milepost
25, on NB WY I-25 got ran over a few months ago, I figured I'd
be seeing a fugly Clearview replacement.  It took a while, during
which there was just an orange cone standing in for it, but a couple
of days ago I finally saw the new sign.  Sure enough.... Clearview,
yech.


Anyway, that particular gore sign location is signficant to me because I
happened to get some photos of it a few years ago, when it was still a
1992-vintage sign that was much larger than it needed to be .  Then,
that got replaced in 2006 ago with a more appropriate/typical sign.  And now
in 2009, it's an ugly Clearview one.   *sigh*

(and please, leave Al Gore out of this)

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)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on January 17, 2010, 02:00:19 PM
^^ I like the first one the best.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on January 19, 2010, 09:49:35 AM
I noted the use of Clearview on a blue services sign along Interstate 10 westbound in Tallahassee yesterday. This is the first instance of Clearview outside the OOCEA or a local municipality (There are some internally lit street signs in Pensacola that use Clearview now as well) that I have observed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wandering drive on January 20, 2010, 04:08:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on January 20, 2010, 04:10:53 PM
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.

Somebody in the Naperville sign shop screwed up.  I've noticed they like to go for a bit of experimentation every now and then.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 20, 2010, 05:00:34 PM
Really? All of the US-51 shields from Rockford I have show FHWA numerals.

(http://www.denexa.com/roadgeek/road-photos/main.php?cmd=image&var1=roadtrips%2Fwaukesha%2Fimg_3377.jpg&var2=700_85)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wandering drive on January 20, 2010, 07:39:09 PM
The shield I saw was a reassurance shield heading NB just north of State St.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on February 03, 2010, 07:44:16 AM
Hawaii uses Ciearview (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=21.34365,-157.891544&panoid=p-suh1QHrxyQywRf83vCbg&cbp=12,295.95,,0,-1.21&ll=21.343526,-157.891281&spn=0,359.98071&z=16) on some of its new signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Stojko on February 04, 2010, 06:54:12 PM
I actually like Clearview... it looks more fresh to me. Newfoundland's replaced some signs with it, I've noticed a few of the exit signs on Pitts Memorial Drive (Route 2) in St. John's have been converted but other than that most of the new signs I've saw are just replacing signs that were very, very, very old and damaged (quite a few of those in this province, unfortunately).

I don't like the mix of the old style and Clearview though, on some highways one sign is Clearview, the next isn't and sometimes two signs are together with one Clearview and one not... that looks horrible, all or nothing for me. ;)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on February 16, 2010, 04:31:04 PM
Did some poking around on Google's Street View (dang, I love that!) and found that even Northwest Territories is using Clearview.  Granted, their directional signs are white on blue, but it's definitely Clearview.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=61.073068,-117.494144&spn=0,359.856148&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=61.073086,-117.494568&panoid=QtNA7rUtR6hqDYdDHMkXhQ&cbp=12,297.85,,0,4.14
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on February 28, 2010, 12:17:11 PM
The first of the new Clearview BGS's have been installed on I-71 Southbound between Columbus and Cincinnati.  The new mounting posts are installed between Grove City and Jeffersonville, but except for these two signs on the 6-lane section around Jeffersonville, the signs themselves haven't been installed yet.  I think they look great...glad that they have finally aligned the OH-435 shield (the old one was just slapped on and not aligned correctly on the sign). 

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S4qkQxU6gVI/AAAAAAAABZg/u8nmbCkG470/s800/IMG_9743.JPG)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S4qkRQc8inI/AAAAAAAABZk/_0u_YpHGtKM/s800/IMG_9745.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Riverside Frwy on February 28, 2010, 02:01:31 PM
Shoot, the exit numbers are Clearview. Atleast the shields aren't
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on February 28, 2010, 02:56:35 PM
San Antonio...
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/SvOG5CQtRXI/AAAAAAAADBs/tuwqOmIPe7U/s800/DSCF1390.JPG)
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on February 28, 2010, 06:02:40 PM
Shoot, the exit numbers are Clearview. Atleast the shields aren't

Lets keep it this way ;-)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on February 28, 2010, 09:01:23 PM
Shoot, the exit numbers are Clearview. Atleast the shields aren't

Lets keep it this way ;-)

I agree.  I do not like the shields in Clearview, although I do think the signs and exit tabs should be.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on March 01, 2010, 03:30:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bulldog1979 on March 01, 2010, 03:34:33 PM
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)"?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: andrewkbrown on March 01, 2010, 03:40:27 PM
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)"?

That's Correct. It's 20 miles from my hometown, Wilmington.
There's an interesting old sign in Wilmington giving the distance to Washington CH on US22/OH3. Yet, unlike the common abbreviation, this sign shows it as "Wash. Court House." Spelling the CH completely, but not Washington.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on March 01, 2010, 06:48:04 PM
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.

Yep, as stated, it stands for Washington Court House.  I wish that ODOT would sign it 'Washington C.H.' instead of just CH, but that's just me being anal.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on March 01, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
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!  :-(
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on March 01, 2010, 08:55:23 PM
Thanks for that.  Being a hockey fan, I saw the "CH" and I'm like, "No way the Montreal Canadiens have anything going on in Ohio, unless they're playing Columbus."

 :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on March 02, 2010, 10:52:56 PM
*OFF TOPIC*
^ GO PENGUINS!!! (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Penguins/penguin-015.gif)
Okay so I'll put it back on topic now, haha
San Angelo uses Clearview on all of the signs except for the standalones on Loop 306 just before it becomes US 67.
Here's a shot of it on near downtown:
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/SsfpIVu4tvI/AAAAAAAACV0/yTrTiYknm_0/s800/038.JPG)
Highway gothic :)
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/SxMhiaWZdmI/AAAAAAAADfA/H_Wy6N3AGTk/s800/DSCF1463.JPG)

Sorry, I erased what DTP said, but I understand, but I've still seen worse on here... haha
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 21, 2010, 10:34:03 AM
The conversion to Clearview has led to problems in how signs are shown in construction plans sets.  Here is a before-and-after example courtesy of Illinois DOT, whose default sign design program is Transoft's GuidSIGN.

This sign design sheet was produced shortly before Illinois DOT adopted Clearview:

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/7/7d/60363_061308-60363-01X-619-289-11x17-second.png)

Note that all of the sign legend, including shields and white-on-green text elements, is pattern-accurate.

Now compare with this sheet, which comes from one of five or six fairly large contracts which Illinois DOT has let recently for major work on I-290 (the Eisenhower Expressway) in suburban Chicago:

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2c/011510-60G51-194-676-585-11x17-second.png)

As you can see, an ugly placeholder typeface (from the same general family as Arial and Helvetica) has been used in place of the actual Clearview legend.  The only parts of the sign that actually use the correct typeface are the shields, which still use the FHWA alphabet series.

This problem is especially common with state DOTs, like Illinois DOT and Virginia DOT, which have standardized on GuidSIGN for their sign design, but it is by no means confined to them--other state DOTs which use SignCAD instead have had problems getting Clearview legend to render correctly on plan sheets.  If you don't have the right version of signcad.rsc, Clearview legend will not render correctly, full stop.

In the distant past it took a special effort to produce pattern-accurate sign design sheets--you had to work with special stencils or stamps to get letters of the correct shape on the plan sheet.  This is why relatively few states, like Arizona, Minnesota, and Nevada, have pattern-accurate sign design sheets dating from the era of first Interstate construction.  But the number of state DOTs producing pattern-accurate sign design sheets has increased monotonically since 2000 with the increasing availability of sign design software capable of producing pattern-accurate output.  So the introduction of Clearview without adequate support for it in state DOT sign design software installations has been very much a retrograde step.  VDOT has finally got its act together and is now producing pattern-accurate Clearview signs in GuidSIGN, and Illinois DOT will probably follow suit eventually, but in the meantime there are literally hundreds of sign design sheets for the I-290 work which are not pattern-accurate for want of Clearview font support.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ctsignguy on March 23, 2010, 09:08:25 PM
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!  :-(

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WNYroadgeek on March 23, 2010, 09:13:13 PM
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/signs/i490/i490exit1eb.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 24, 2010, 12:34:04 PM
So does this mean NYSDOT is doing clearview or not?  Given the sign's location, I can't really tell which authority put it up.

Though I've always wondered if one sign on I-390 for exit 15B is clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on March 24, 2010, 12:47:31 PM
It (and the one it replaced) looks like a NYSTA sign. It's just at the end of the concrete just past the Exit 47 tollbooth heading up 490.

It wouldn't look so bad if the letters weren't entirely too large.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on March 24, 2010, 12:51:18 PM
It wouldn't look so bad if the letters weren't entirely too large.

And if the numbers in the NY 19 shield weren't too small.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: andrewkbrown on March 24, 2010, 05:57:40 PM
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

I've noticed that too, with Wilmington posted for I-71 south exit to US 68, and Xenia for I-71 north at US 68.
Yet at SR 73 and I-71, both directions are signed Waynesville Wilmington.
Then there's the SR 72 exit at I-71. For Jamestown Sabina, even though SR 72 doesn't actually go through Sabina.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on March 24, 2010, 09:04:41 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on March 24, 2010, 09:07:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on March 24, 2010, 09:13:52 PM
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 in a complete area, wouldn't you expect all the signs to be in the same font...
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on March 24, 2010, 09:14:58 PM
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...
 BigMatt

Oh ok. Probably a different contractor doing the signage or something. There are plenty of new signage bring installed in the Philadelphia area that are both clearview and gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on March 24, 2010, 09:20:24 PM
Ok, cause it's for Central High School, SAISD prolly ignorantly requested the sign after the rest of the signs had been ordered and whatnot. Central thinks they're the best even though last year the football team went 0-10 and this year was 2-8...
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KEK Inc. on March 25, 2010, 01:04:25 AM
I actually like Clearview.  It looks sleek and more modern; however, the numerals aren't the greatest, and they look horrible in their respected shields.

[Removed excess formatting. -S.]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on March 26, 2010, 11:20:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on March 27, 2010, 07:16:47 PM
For those of you that are missing Button Copy, there's plenty still left in Ohio.  I would say that there's more Button Copy than other types (retroreflective, Clearview).  Some interstate routes have Clearview, but most have previous types.  Button Copy is pretty much the only type that is found on non-interstate freeways, such as US- and Ohio-routes. 

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S66ONMISVfI/AAAAAAAABbM/27GdskJ6sqI/s640/IMG_9808.JPG)

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S66OMvXsUSI/AAAAAAAABbI/_ladjm8Dpdw/s912/IMG_9815.JPG)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S66OLwqFGDI/AAAAAAAABbE/BUejah69Iew/s640/IMG_9814.JPG)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 27, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on March 27, 2010, 08:05:47 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 27, 2010, 08:45:41 PM

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.

and as for the state routes - maybe they just didn't want to make button-copy outlines of the Ohio state shape?  The only state outline I recall offhand being done in buttons is Florida. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on March 30, 2010, 12:10:16 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on March 30, 2010, 12:52:35 AM
^^^

I agree.  The text is too big for the sign.

IMHO It looks like Clearview has to be "just the right size" for it to look as good as it can.  i.e. There is less room for error than with the traditional fonts.

And, if I am correct in that assessment, it is probably one of the reasons that I don't like Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 30, 2010, 04:07:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on March 30, 2010, 08:42:40 AM
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)


I like the Clearview font, but the sizing is AWFUL on these....EECK! 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on March 30, 2010, 08:46:18 AM
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)


I always thought Ontario signs looked a little European, but those look very European.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on March 30, 2010, 03:22:27 PM
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 use 5WR on my signs for SimCity, and it seems to come out really nicely.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 03, 2010, 05:36:32 AM
I saw some Clearview in some city signs in Monterey, CA.  On Del Monte Bl. and Fisherman's Wharf, they added a new traffic light with new signs.  Monterey used to have brown signs with a more old fashioned font, that actually was pretty thematic.

Also, there were a couple of green temporary constructions signs (Ah, California never fails to impress me.  :P)  along California State Route 1 that used clearview.  One of the signs was on SB SR-1 just a stone's throw from Castroville in the western terminus of SR-156, and the other one was on NB SR-1 after Carpenter St. north of Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 03, 2010, 11:00:03 AM

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 the US-40 exit sign assembly (which is after I-71 and US-40 exit from I-670 East).  You can see the old button-copy outline on the US-40 shield.  The buttons haven't been replaced in a long time, so at night it's only the overhead sign lighting that illuminates the US-40 shield.  This whole interchange is scheduled to be redesigned as part of the first phase of the I-70/I-71 (Split) rework project, so I'm sure that this panel will be sent off to the scrap heap after that happens.

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7dWuBJR39I/AAAAAAAABcU/I4rFY3YrJRQ/s720/IMG_9888.JPG)



Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 03, 2010, 11:07:45 AM
The replacement of the button-copy signs on I-71 between Grove City, OH and Jeffersonville, OH is now complete.  I have to say, the use of Clearview in Ohio is top-notch...no ugly Clearview numerals in the shields, thank goodness. Also, all of the mileage signs have the shields instead of spelling out the route name.  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)

After (Clearview)
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7dWvQYa0GI/AAAAAAAABcc/B_T25FFh7Kw/s640/IMG_9819.JPG)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 03, 2010, 12:14:08 PM
thanks for the photo!  Can you email me the original high-resolution one?  shields@aaroads.com

that looks similar to some assemblies found in the city of Baltimore, for US-40 and US-1.  No buttons on the number, and very small buttons on the outline. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 04, 2010, 12:27:12 PM
Also, not sure if these signs will be replaced as part of the same project, but these BGS' at the intersection of I-270 (Exit 55) and I-71 on the south side of Columbus (near Grove City) are the oldest on the Columbus freeway system. (and the worst-maintained).  As you can see, the I-270 shield is pretty much faded beyond recognition.  Interestingly, you can still see the blanks on the I-270 reassurance BGS where Indianapolis was replaced by Dayton as the control city many years ago.  I'll post the replacement signs if these are part of the project...new ones seem to be popping up daily.

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7i9SEWEOUI/AAAAAAAABdA/uHgsjcY1nc0/s640/IMG_9882.JPG)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/S7i9RLeCZYI/AAAAAAAABc8/_cf1OI-42XE/s640/IMG_9883.JPG)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 04, 2010, 12:58:45 PM
that very first 71 is the original 1957 spec for green signs, with the small number.  The shields on guide signs were not supposed to have the state name, from the very beginning.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on April 06, 2010, 05:15:51 PM
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>  :-(
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hellfighter on April 06, 2010, 11:33:36 PM
Hey, looks like MDOT putting up Clearview on I-275 from I-696 to I-94.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Mr_Northside on April 07, 2010, 09:15:34 AM
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>  :-(

I don't know that I'll miss that specific sign as opposed to the new one... but I'm definitely gonna miss seeing either one the annual trip to Louisville for Lebowskifest this year (due to vacation/friends wedding).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 07, 2010, 11:43:42 AM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on April 07, 2010, 08:26:47 PM

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.

On the trip back to Nashville, it's the first sign that Nashville within our reach as it is around 135 miles from the south side of Louisville.

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.

While I generally like the shields instead of spelled out, for some reason I liked the letters.  Oh well, I guess it's "progress."  :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 08, 2010, 12:02:22 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 08, 2010, 02:39:24 AM
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)

I'm surprised that they put Dennison and Greenville on the same line, and not one above/below the other.  That makes "Dennison Greenville" look like one place.  Isn't that against MUTCD standards?

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 03:02:01 AM
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.

Woof!  Woof!  Cough! Cough!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 08, 2010, 03:09:39 AM
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)
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? 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on April 08, 2010, 02:54:02 PM
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)

Yeah, not sure what TxDOT was thinking there.  Just remember, it could be worse:  the state highway numbers could be Clearview as well.  Blech!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on April 08, 2010, 04:33:47 PM
In my opinion, it's not the Clearview on those signs that make them look ugly, it's the layout. "Denison" and "Greenville" should be on two separate lines, and the "Frontage Road" sign has too much empty space.

TxDOT is one of the (very few) jurisdictions that actually uses Clearview well, in my opinion. But you've got your oddities in every bunch.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on April 08, 2010, 06:36:55 PM
For anyone curious about how TxDOT does things, they've posted their Freeway Signing Handbook online:

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/freeway_signing_policies.htm
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 08, 2010, 09:42:20 PM

Woof!  Woof!  Cough! Cough!  :sombrero:

My dislike for the City of Louisville / Jefferson County (or Louisville Metro as they call themselves now) has nothing to do with the college sports team that wears red, white and black and where the basketball team is coached by a person who used to work at a similar job in Lexington and is now famous for porking ladies who are not his wife at Italian restaurants.

And it really has nothing to do with roads, either.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 10, 2010, 12:35:02 PM
The only known use of Clearview by Henrico County. I'm sure there's another "Dr" under there...

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/4507562873_263d4ff6b4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4507562873/)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on April 10, 2010, 03:15:50 PM
Here's the latest Clearview sign in Ontario I think this one was installed within these two weeks:
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5061/rscn7861.jpg)

Which was overlaid on this earlier one that was falling apart:
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3719/dscn4080.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: huskeroadgeek on April 11, 2010, 12:16:41 AM
I'll make my first post on my site my feelings on what appears to be one of the more hot topics in the roadgeek community. I HATE Clearview. I'm sure it's just because I'm so used to the Highway Gothic fonts, but I think it will take me a long time to get used to Clearview. Fortunately, I haven't seen many Clearview signs because they aren't putting them up in my area(Nebraska) or in any other places I've been to recently. But I've seen them in pictures, and they just look so unnatural. They look to me like the cheap fake road signs they use in movies instead of the real thing(one of my pet peeves in movies).
I completely understand the reasoning behind them and maybe I'll feel a little differently about them when I actually see them in person, but they just look so strange to me in pictures.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 02:13:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 11, 2010, 02:23:05 AM
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?  

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/FtCollinsCLEARVIEW1a.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: huskeroadgeek on April 11, 2010, 02:55:50 AM
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. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 10:49:10 AM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 12:30:37 PM
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...

They have been going in the other direction as well--I've seen signing plans which specify Clearview 6-W instead of 5-W or 5-W-R.  Properly designed Clearview legend will not call attention to itself.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 12:46:42 PM
yes, compress-a-font or expand-a-font always looks terrible.  I've seen it done for Highway Gothic and even FHWA 1926 (the classic block font)!  

about the only time that compressed and expanded fonts were used liberally was on the 1910s Auto Club porcelain guide signs, but even those had the stroke thickness manually adjusted as necessary once the width was set.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 01:16:50 PM
Ascending order of condensation (6-W, 5-W, 5-W-R, 4-W, 3-W, 2-W):

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/3/36/Randlett-waurika-clearview-6w.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/6/69/Randlett-waurika-clearview-5w.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/2d/Randlett-waurika-clearview-5wr.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/3/3c/Randlett-waurika-clearview-4w.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/2/20/Randlett-waurika-clearview-3w.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/d/da/Randlett-waurika-clearview-2w.png)

Personally, I think that if you are a sign designer and you are already using mixed-case Clearview for small signs work, you shouldn't try to "double up" on sign size reduction (smaller sign = worse service to the driver) by using a Clearview typeface more condensed than 5-W-R.

Edit:  I see the 6-W sign is narrower than the 5-W sign.  I use the kerning built into the Roadgeek series and cannot vouch for its accuracy with regard to Clearview legend (I can do so only for Roadgeek Series E Modified).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on April 11, 2010, 01:21:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 01:22:48 PM
wow, that 5-W has some extraordinarily sparse kerning.  Can you set it so that the resulting space between letters is consistent and matches, proportionally, the 6-W?  (Namely, the spacing would be the same as if you compressed 6-W to the glyph width of 5-W.)

maybe set the 5-W's spacing to that of the 5-W-R?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 01:24:57 PM
MTO should consider making the signs from scratch rather than overlaying them. It looks much better.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 02:23:59 PM
wow, that 5-W has some extraordinarily sparse kerning.

That is the way it is supposed to be.  The kerning is basically the same as that used in SignCAD drawings in states which use Clearview 5-W (Arizona, for example).  5-W-R has the same glyphs as 5-W but has reduced intercharacter spacing so that 5-W-R legend matches identical Series E Modified legend in length.  It is the 6-W which seems to have the out-of-spec kerning; what we have above is essentially "6-W-R."

Edit:  This sign has the Clearview 6-W legend with kerning adjusted to better approximate the specification:

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/d/dd/Randlett-waurika-clearview-6w-kerning-adjusted.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 02:40:32 PM
I much prefer the 5-W-R kerning, though I'm not looking at it from several hundred feet away at 80 mph...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 03:02:02 PM
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)

In other words, the horizontal sizing control in Inkscape distorts the glyphs rather than altering the underlying kerning.  Inkscape actually doesn't have a control for applying kerning changes globally to a piece of legend.  You have to do it a letter at a time, with Alt and the arrow keys.  CorelDRAW does provide controls for manipulating kerning globally.  You can do it in the text styles dialog (similar to Inkscape's but more fully featured) by increasing or decreasing the intercharacter spacing by a set percentage of the space width.  The curve editing tool also becomes a manual kerning tool when a text object is selected (you choose one or more glyphs and use the pointer to move them relative to the rest of the text, and can hold down Ctrl to constrain the movement to be either horizontally or vertically in relation to the original position).

It looks like the real-life Randlett/Waurika sign uses undistorted Clearview 5-W/5-W-R glyphs but with kerning much smaller than that specified for either.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 03:13:50 PM
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

*  Not using all-uppercase Clearview for primary legend (destinations, street names, etc.) in positive-contrast situations

*  Not using any Clearview variant more condensed than 5-W-R

All of these have proven to be problematic for many agencies.  Virginia DOT, for example, is now using all-uppercase Clearview on D-series signs.  (Ugh!)  I am seeing Illinois DOT plan sheets with Clearview route marker digits.  (Double ugh!)  TxDOT now has standard signs for toll roads which use Clearview against white backgrounds.  (Jesus weeps.)  Some TxDOT districts are even using 2-W for D-series signs; the piranha-teeth effect sends shivers up and down your spine.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 11, 2010, 03:41:51 PM
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.  That particular set of photos I put together some time back, I just combed through more recent photos from Ft Collins and put together another...  showing again the inconsistant nature of signs around town.  Also, their latest sign replacement program must have started just before Clearview, because there are many not-that-old street signs in Highway Gothic.  And then, the main drag, College Ave/US287, that's all HG.   So, really, it's kind of frustrating, with that mix of typefaces all over town.  But, when done well, I think many of the new Clearview signs are pretty decent.  When not done well....

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/FtCollinsCLEARVIEW2a.jpg)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2010, 04:34:39 PM
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.

But that's just the problem.  Clearview is optimized for maximum legibility when used in mixed-case and is not significantly more legible than the FHWA alphabet series when used in all-uppercase.  If you are going to keep on using all-uppercase lettering, you might as well not change over to Clearview in the first place.

Before they adopted Clearview, Oklahoma DOT, TxDOT, Michigan DOT, and Arizona DOT all used all-uppercase legend (Series D in most cases, with the possible exception of Series C or even Series B on some boundary signs in Michigan, and Series C generally in Oklahoma) on their conventional-road guide signs.  Since they adopted Clearview, all four state DOTs have adopted mixed-case for these signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 10:03:46 PM
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 was referring to what was going on in Android's first set of signs– the wide "Drake" and "Valley Forge" signs look sideways-compressed to my eyes. I know the ODOT mileage sign is just a kerning fail, probably due to the fact that they hadn't really had much Clearview experience when that was put up.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 11, 2010, 10:12:34 PM
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...

Why? What's wrong with black-on-white or black-on-yellow Clearview that isn't wrong with white-on-green or white-on-blue? (That's assuming that there's anything "wrong" with Clearview to start with....
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 10:15:52 PM
FHWA only approved Clearview for use on positive-contrast applications because at the time that's all they had tested. Studies conducted since then have shown that Clearview legibility is no better than, or *worse* than, FHWA Series fonts for negative-contrast applications.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 12, 2010, 12:17:47 AM
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.

Road geek sentimentality aside, I think that the majority of public opinion has been positive towards Clearview indicating that it's much easier to read than Highway Gothic fonts at the same point size.  If the majority of the driving public finds this new font easier to read in most circumstances, isn't that the point of road signs anyway....prevention of accidents and easier navigation?  

That said, I don't think that there's any reason that a certain state highway department couldn't continue to use Highway Gothic if they wanted....


Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2010, 12:20:34 AM
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?"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on April 12, 2010, 12:49:55 AM
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.

The term you're looking for Scott is "Interim Approval". With an interim approval, I think an agency need only submit a request to use the item in question, instead of the lengthier and more complex experimentation process.

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.

It's all in the name of the manual...uniform.  Uniformity of sign design isn't just in symbols, but in messages, sizes and fonts.  When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 12, 2010, 02:24:39 AM
  When non-standard fonts are used (and not used consistently) it makes a sign look "unofficial" an "unprofessional".

definitely.  It is helpful to have some kind of uniform look to the signage as you travel the country. 

And onto another topic - back-lit street signs.  In Fort Collins they have many, but they are all Highway Gothic (fine with me!) but I keep expecting to come across one in Clearview.   Well a couple of weeks ago I did, somewhere on the plains north of Denver. I grabbed a photo, and here it is - not just Clear View, but also Mountain View!  ;-) -

 (http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/MOUNTAINVIEW-BACKLIT.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on April 12, 2010, 08:39:47 AM

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?"

Since Ohio started placing Clearview on the highway...I've had more folks come up to me in passing and comment on the great new signage.  "Easy to read", "larger fonts", "better reflectivity" are the most common comments.  Of course, the "better reflectivity" is just because it's a new sign (not really specific to the Clearview), but considering that most of these folks are usually not ones to make any road-related comments...I take it as a good thing. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on April 12, 2010, 09:59:05 AM
From the Texas Freeway Signing Handbook (http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/freeway_signing_policies.htm) mentioned earlier (Chapter 4, Section 3):

Quote
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).

I'm glad I don't live in Texas! :banghead:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on April 12, 2010, 03:29:02 PM
when they overlay, are they putting a new hard substrate (metal? fiberglass?) over the old layers?  Or just new soft/flexible sheeting?

According to the Ontario Traffic Manual the overlays are supposed to be 1mm/0.40 aluminum sheets that are riveted to the sign. 

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.

Yeah there's a pretty noticeable rippling on the sign, I've seen some other ones that were done a lot better than this one  but it's maybe the the new type of sheeting that makes the effect worse. 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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 12, 2010, 07:15:35 PM

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.


True, that is.  However, having lived in Fort Collins from 1981-2001, and learned to drive there, I was used to what they had.  And what they had there was consistant, I had no idea back then what typeface they used, but now know it was Series C.   Then this Clearview stuff starts showing up...  as I said, I don't mind it since they mostly do not use the horrible CV numerals, but the more and I see of it, (I get down there about once a month) the more variety there is, when it used to be consistant all over town. 

Those examples from Stamford, see what you mean by inconsistant - I do see that many of the newer signs are that modified version of HG that I like, Cheyenne WY and some parts of Denver use that now too, best of both worlds there, .
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 12, 2010, 08:32:45 PM
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?

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.

(http://www.tcpsigns.com/images/highintensitysheeting.jpg)

Prismatic is very cost-effective compared to diamond, though it is not quite as reflective (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.) 

Diamond is intended for very high-priority applications, like stop signs.

I agree that an EG green background is more aesthetically pleasing than having the same level of reflectivity for both foreground and background.  Texas appears to have made some EG/honeycomb Clearview signs a couple years ago (before honeycomb was replaced with prismatic around August '06) and they are just about the only Clearview signs out there that I think are decent looking.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 13, 2010, 04:32:52 AM
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.

Sorry, no, don't have that information at my fingertips--though I assume that comparison is based on retroreflectivity coefficients at a fixed combination of observation and entrance angles.

It is interesting that high-intensity prismatic sheeting is positioned (http://solutions.3m.co.uk/3MContentRetrievalAPI/BlobServlet?locale=en_GB&lmd=1187869627000&assetId=1180574984281&assetType=MMM_Image&blobAttribute=ImageFile) as an upgrade from enclosed-lens sheeting, not encapsulated-lens sheeting, and that one of its main selling points is a "whiter white" than can be obtained with the older sheeting types.  "Whiter white" = better looking sign under daylight illumination.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 13, 2010, 10:27:55 AM
as far as I know, prismatic was unveiled and then the honeycomb stuff was retired, and about 2-3 years later (late 2009), they retired EG.  So for a little while, EG and prismatic existed side by side.

indeed, they are no longer making EG.  I asked the sign company I work with to stockpile a few rolls for me so I can continue to make replicas to 1970s standards!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 13, 2010, 10:42:51 AM
Regarding Clearview numbers, I've noticed some clipped Clearview numbers showing up on the Illinois Tollway system.  The 4 and 7 both are clipped the way some state DOTs used to do for their custom fonts.  The 2 also appears to be clipped the same way.
The 4 is best shown here: http://highwayexplorer.com/il_showFull.php?id=3921&section=30881&terminus=Other
And here is the 7: http://highwayexplorer.com/il_showFull.php?id=3904&section=30881&terminus=Other
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on April 15, 2010, 12:21:01 AM
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.

You're probably right, it probably is prismatic high-intensity and I still haven't had the chance to look at that sign upclose and in detail before so I can't be sure about what type of sheeting was used, the thing that originally threw me off was that the MTO website (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transtek/roadtalk/rt15-4/#a12) said that:
Quote from: MTO webpage
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.



Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 15, 2010, 12:25:12 AM
Quote from: MTO webpage
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.


I do not know the distinction between all the Type-and-roman-numeral classifications of sheeting.  Does anyone know?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 15, 2010, 01:31:06 AM
Quote from: MTO webpage
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.


I do not know the distinction between all the Type-and-roman-numeral classifications of sheeting.  Does anyone know?

http://trafficsign.us/signsheet.html

Richard Moeur does.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on April 16, 2010, 11:28:10 AM
On the road this morning, I found a new clearview sign for Birmingham Airport at the interchange between I-459 and I-20 here in Birmingham.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on April 22, 2010, 11:50:41 AM
Here in Atlanta, I've noticed more and more Clearview signs appearing with the ongoing construction, but also seems like GDOT is now starting to install the "Tab" BGS as well. I've noticed them slowly appearing since last Sept.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on April 22, 2010, 03:17:18 PM
Update: It appears all signage for Birmingham Airport is now in clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on April 30, 2010, 06:05:38 PM
Here's some Clearview for you gang. This is on SR 8 in Cuyahoga Falls, Stow, and Boston Heights.

(http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/2197/video50065907.jpg) (http://img693.imageshack.us/i/video50065907.jpg/)

(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/5479/video70024712.jpg) (http://img202.imageshack.us/i/video70024712.jpg/)

(http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/5679/video50154809.jpg) (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/video50154809.jpg/)

A little note on the third picture: SR 8 is under reconstruction between Boston Mills Rd and Hines Hill Rd in Boston Heights (the Turnpike interchange is included in this) so it has the trademark orange part on the bottom of the signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on April 30, 2010, 08:54:11 PM
Wow...that third sign is hard to read with the sun shining on it thanks to the reflective sheeting...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: exit322 on April 30, 2010, 11:02:20 PM
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?"

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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on April 30, 2010, 11:49:09 PM
Wow...that third sign is hard to read with the sun shining on it thanks to the reflective sheeting...

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on May 01, 2010, 07:28:06 PM
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).

Keep in mind that the new Clearview signs are from the Central Interchange to 1 mile before Arlington Rd. (Exit 120)

Needless to point out, there is not a lot of button copy signs left in the Akron-Canton area, apart from I-76 between Gilcrest Rd (Exit 27) and the Central Interchange.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 05, 2010, 03:14:01 AM
I took these photos yesterday while running some errands in Portland, OR.  I didn't notice the Clearview, but this sign has been here for about a year, I believe. 

I don't really see many new Oregon signs, but with OR-569, I believe all of the new signs still use Highway Gothic.  This may be something Portland did since it's on a city street. 

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb153/KEK_INC/road/0504101316.jpg)

(http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb153/KEK_INC/road/0504101315.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 11, 2010, 09:20:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on May 11, 2010, 09:25:50 AM
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.

I see that you are from Florence. I spotted a Clearview sign on AL 20/US 72 Alt going west at the intersection with US 43 in Muscle Shoals. It was a sign indicating the direction of US 72 at that intersection. Have you seen anymore instances of Clearview up there?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 14, 2010, 07:06:23 PM
NJDOT Clearview install. Don't know if it was a contractor mistake or a test install. Its the only one I can find via Streetview on I-676.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.601981,56.601563&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Camden,+New+Jersey&ll=39.930858,-75.113611&spn=0.005422,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.930786,-75.113689&panoid=pGWerAFkn_cPpdJHkbU3JA&cbp=12,210.23,,1,-14.08
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on May 14, 2010, 09:01:44 PM
If people are gonna put ClearView all over, then I have a request for a new overhead sign in Angelo. It might as well be the same thing, they're both ugly...
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_WYYeXvkUoUE/S-3x9S2tiEI/AAAAAAAAFOs/2j7ye8MSlXk/s800/Graff%20Sign.jpg)
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 14, 2010, 09:29:43 PM
bwahahaha - now where did I put my sign drawing done in Wingdings?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 15, 2010, 12:00:49 PM
TBH..If some signature features of Highway Gothic had been retained (like the slanted tops of b, h, i, k, and so forth...as well as the numerals remained unchanged) I wouldn't mind it nearly as much as I do.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 15, 2010, 04:09:48 PM
IMO clearview itself is fine; the problem is that it's usually out of proportion with the rest of the sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on May 16, 2010, 01:28:44 PM
Here is some more Clearview in Louisiana. This is probably close to the pic that Andy Jung took a while back.

(http://imgur.com/vXOt8.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/XW3zz.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: national highway 1 on May 21, 2010, 02:54:01 AM
Clearview from Hawaii (courtesy of http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/i-h201/ (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/i-h201/) )
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/i-h201/w4.jpg)
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/i-h201/w1e.jpg)
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/i-h201/e1c.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on May 23, 2010, 11:57:35 AM
I just did a 3000 mile road trip and saw some CV here and there.  I guess I'm getting used to it now - don't have the instant gag-reflex I once had.  But I still hate the numbers.   That's why this sign just a couple of miles from here doesn't bother me that much, (for now) they kept the old number tab at the top.  The rest of the sign though, is it me or are the letters sized just a little bit too large for the sign?

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasGillette.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on May 23, 2010, 03:14:14 PM
[image]

God that is ugly.  The letters are way too big for that sign.  Death to Clearview, long live the FHWA font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on May 23, 2010, 04:06:04 PM
[image]

God that is ugly.

Agreed. Maybe Wyoming DOT should scale down on the font size.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 24, 2010, 02:40:14 AM
That sign is just badly designed all around. It'd look just as terrible in FHWA Series fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on May 24, 2010, 03:21:36 PM
Terrible spacing makes any sign look bad, regardless of font...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on May 24, 2010, 07:45:59 PM
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasGillette.jpg)
God that is ugly.
Agreed. Maybe Wyoming DOT should scale down on the font size.

LOL, I found I had a photo of another one that WYDOT did that may even be worse:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/214HigleyBlvd.jpg)

And going back to that Exit 140 Douglas Gillette sign - above I mentioned that I was glad the tag number stayed FHWA?  well I very seldom actually drive past that sign - I usually exit before I get there and there's only just that one sign that changed.  And it was one of the first Clearview signs put up actually, 2007 date code.  Well after I posted that photo, I went and drove by it again and saw that I must have been lucky to get that photo of the old number tag on it, becuase it's got a Clearview one now with a 2007 date on it.   :banghead:  I was trying to find my original unedited photo of that sign but wasn’t having any luck, I was wondering when I took it.  I did snap a fresh photo today though:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasGillette2.jpg)

I agree with the previous comment that poor sign layout is part of why those are bad. 

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 that brings me full circle back to 2007 - going the other direction on the interstate you find this sign, FHWA and typeset with a much more appropriate font size than that Douglas-Gillette sign above!:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTY-FHWA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 24, 2010, 10:29:21 PM
These Pennsylvania signs on US 22 seem to have a larger Clearview font than many:

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_State_College_Day_3/Images/117.jpg)

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_State_College_Day_3/Images/122.jpg)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: national highway 1 on May 25, 2010, 12:32:37 AM
These Pennsylvania signs on US 22 seem to have a larger Clearview font than many:
[snip]

Hmm...These don't look bad after all!!!

[Removed images in quotes. Please take the time to do this yourself; we don't need to see the same images three times in a row. -S.]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on May 25, 2010, 03:08:08 PM
These Pennsylvania signs on US 22 seem to have a larger Clearview font than many:
[snip]

Hmm...These don't look bad after all!!!


The Cresson/Summit looks great.  The Gallitzin sign looks a little tall.

Most of the newer Clearview in Central PA is pretty clean and properly proportioned, especially in District 2.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on May 26, 2010, 01:09:42 AM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on May 26, 2010, 01:22:19 AM
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!
And it's still more attractive than the pure Clearview sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on May 26, 2010, 11:03:53 AM
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 sign on the left appear to have two different green colors on the sign, as if it is made from three different panels.  It would appear that the middle panel is gone, and an older typeface and green color is exposed.  Did Wyoming use a non-FHWA font at one time?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on May 26, 2010, 05:18:15 PM
You know, you're right about that sign, it's definitely got missing sections there, it was only because of that halfway-decent looking new Clearview sign that I even pulled that one up for comparison. 

This is king of getting off of the Clearview topic.... but since you asked, I don't know the history about that weird mixed-case typeface.  Ever since 1987 I think Wyoming has used an easy-to-spot date code at the bottom left of all their WYDOT-erected signs. (not easy to see in my low-bandwidth samples though)  The newest ones I've seen it on are from 2001, which is when I moved up here.  I really didn't start to pay much attention to the signage beyond noticing the dates until around 2003 or so, and I didn't get any digital cameras until 2005. 

That Chugwater sign though, it's that left FHWA section that has the date on it, 2001, so unless that left section falls off before WYDOT replaces it I guess I'll never know how old it is.  But you are definitely right, I was digging in my road-sign folders looking for another example of that funky mixed-case and found an older picture of that Chugwater sign where it only has ONE missing panel. 

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterTYOldOddballTypefaceOnePanel.jpg)

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on May 26, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
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)


This looks a lot like the mixed-case Series D that Georgia uses for most of its BGSes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 26, 2010, 08:44:17 PM
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.

It vaguely resembles a font that California used in 1949-1950 on overhead black guide signs, before switching to standard FHWA in 1950.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 27, 2010, 02:22:40 AM
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.

That would be my guess as well--mixed-case Series C stretched out to the same width as mixed-case series D.

The biggest difference between Series C and D (and the most reliable way to tell the difference between the two) is in the digit 5.  Unfortunately there is no "5" on this sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 27, 2010, 09:27:02 AM
This looks similar to some signs that existed on the West Virginia Turnpike between Beckley and the Cabin Creek toll booth until a couple of years ago, when they were replaced. That replacement came before WV started using Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on May 27, 2010, 02:29:17 PM
Yeah, I said that before, I've seen similar lettering in other states ( and cities ) Iowa for one, before they went to Clearview.   And I could post more examples from other places, but that's getting away from Clearview.   I will say this though, when I see such signage in that alternate typeface, I like it better than Clearview.  But I think CV works a bit better for visability, which is the purpose, whether I like it or not.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on May 29, 2010, 02:48:56 PM
I can actually tell you exactly what the "problem" was with FHWA:

High-intensity reflective sheeting.

Highway Gothic came out in a time when guide signs were not reflective or were, at most, low-intensity sheeted.  The letters themselves were never reflective, only the little buttons in them were.

And that's the way it should still be.  I'd say it's a lot cheaper to install a non-reflective button copy sign and maintain it, since all you'd really have to do is replace a few reflective buttons every so many years.  As an added bonus, barring physical damage, the sign could just be repainted when it deteriorates across, say, 40 years.  That's more environmentally friendly than manufacturing a whole new sign every 20, no?

But alas,  some idiot in Florida decided that button copy was a stupid concept and the entire sign should be reflective.  The rest of the country ultimately caught on sometime in the 80s, it was downhill from there.  Then in the early 2000s, some bored college students at PennState came up with Clearview. (okay so that's probably not really what happened, but that's the way I feel about it :P)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 29, 2010, 07:53:06 PM
It's actually a lot cheaper to fabricate a reflective sheeting sign than a button copy sign. The reason? Economies of scale. With button copy, you have to fabricate and have on stock enough copies of ( 26 uppercase letters + 26 lowercase letters + 10 digits ) * the number of letter heights you have in stock + shields. Of course, you also have to consider the price of keeping all of this stocked--either rent or "opportunity cost" (if you're storing all that button copy paraphernalia you can't store, say, traffic cones there). Then you need to actually assemble the sign, using hardware (so you have to pay for the rivets/screws/whatever). And of course pay for the labor for some guy to sit there screwing around assembling the sign.

With sheeting, you stock rolls of sheeting (green, blue, yellow, white, black) which are pretty cheap and when you have to make a sign, design it on the computer, load whatever roll of sheeting, then go out to lunch while the computer makes exactly the characters you need. Not quite as easy as printing off a road sign, but close. (For smaller signs that use process inks, like sign blades and standard regulatory and warning signs, it actually is printing off a road sign!) Then when you get back from lunch, assembling the sign becomes a matter of just peel'n'stick. And you can do fancier stuff with this, since you can cut the sheeting to literally any two-dimensional shape possible. That makes diagrammatics more affordable since you don't have to special-manufacture a giant arrow that splits the right way, you just tell the computer to cut it out while you're cutting out all the other legend.

That said, there are some benefits to button copy besides the aesthetic that roadgeeks like it for. For one thing, all of the signs are consistent, because it just costs too much to make them not be. And of course, when the background is not made reflective like some states in their infinite wisdom did (OK, I'm looking squarely at you) visibility is improved by the contrast between the reflective buttons and nonreflective background. We could still get this improvement today by sticking reflective letters to non-reflective background, but for whatever reason, FHWA doesn't want us to do that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on May 30, 2010, 12:20:04 AM
Button copy is definitely less legible at night than reflective signage... albeit not extremely so. Still, modern sheeting is starting to get ridiculous. This "high-intensity" stuff glows like rainbows when the sun shines directly on it, making the sign near-impossible to read, regardless of font. Thus going entirely counter to the intended purpose. :pan:
Same problem with headlights, actually. Hhigh-intensity sheeting produces a lot of contrast between the sign and the surrounding environment, but little between the letters and the green background (which is far more important), especially at greater distances. These signs appear as little more than glowing white-green rectangles to me until I get relatively close. Lower grades don't glow so much and it's actually easier for me to make out the letters with them.

So, yeah, either the reflectivity is being overdone or, as has been suggested, only the letters should be reflective. I think I like the latter.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 30, 2010, 12:22:22 AM
Seems like there's a bunch of us on here that like that idea (it's been brought up before here). Maybe when the next MUTCD public comment comes around, we should get in touch with FHWA?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Signs certainly are very reflective these days.  Recently I drove down I-81 at night and I could see a sign on a bridge long before I could see the bridge.  And it wasn't a big sign either; just a street name sign to say what road was crossing over I-81!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2010, 12:26:49 PM
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. 

as for "some idiot in Florida" ... any details on this?  I know the Will Rogers Turnpike was using retroreflective signage as early as 1953 before switching to button copy in the early 1960s because it lasted longer and offered better contrast.  Other examples include Washington State, which started with retroreflective signs in 1958 and then switched away.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 01, 2010, 12:39:34 PM
Louisiana's the latest state to go Clearview crazy....on Interstate 49/US 167 between Opelousas and Lafayette they're currently replacing all of the signage, and it's all Clearview.

I wish that I could show it all...but I don't have a digital camera.

The most interesting sign change, though: at the I-49/US 167/US 190 interchange in Opelousas: the overhanging BGS serving US 190 East that hangs on the SB I-49 overpass now has a yellow bottom section with "LEFT EXIT 1/4 MILE" (actually not an exit but an on-ramp) in black print.  The old signage was a bit smaller, in all green, and simply said "NEXT LEFT". Is this a reflection of national or AHSTO changes, or just LaDOTD's move on its own??


Anthony
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 01, 2010, 10:24:31 PM
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. 

The reflective background comes from the fact that the MUTCD requires signage to be reflectorized or illuminated at night, such that it appears the way it does in daytime.  The reasoning for this requirement is what should be questioned.

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.


I would be interested in seeing what kind of research has been done with highly reflective signs and the halation problem... If there is a way to efficiently manufacture large signs with two different reflective sheetings, and it could be shown to not hamper driver cognition of the sign legends, would that be a better approach than switching signs to Clearview?

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2010, 11:26:26 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KillerTux on June 02, 2010, 12:15:37 AM
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. 
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...
http://www.mdhighwaycentennial.com/images/template/gallery/SHA_news-02_100kb.wmv
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 02, 2010, 12:20:56 AM
all Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS.

that sounds really expensive.  what do they have against prismatic high intensity?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KillerTux on June 02, 2010, 12:31:12 AM
all Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS.

that sounds really expensive.  what do they have against prismatic high intensity?
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on June 03, 2010, 12:32:06 PM
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. 

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 03, 2010, 08:25:37 PM
Noticed this on Adam Prince's blog:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vXnjsNX3hQc/S7lUavK4ZBI/AAAAAAAACSg/C48rbQC25Mo/s1600/Exit38AB+PA68+Exit39+PA18+gantry.jpg

and

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vXnjsNX3hQc/S7lUUcgoa3I/AAAAAAAACSY/Ogi2B9KX51o/s1600/Exit38AB+PA68+-distant+Exit36+Brighton+gantries.jpg

Despite not being a Clearview fan, I'm impressed with that implementation.  A far cry from PennDOT's original Clearview replacement signs, which were truly AWFUL.  I actually don't mind these new ones.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on June 03, 2010, 09:07:27 PM
I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 03, 2010, 09:31:45 PM
I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.

And that would be a violation of MUTCD.  Clearview is approved for guide signs only.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on June 03, 2010, 10:02:12 PM
Here's some more Clearview from Toronto: The first sign is a picture of a temporary construction sign while I'm not sure if the second one, the speed limit sign is Clearview or some other font but the 6 looks a lot like Clearview to me.

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1867/1001645q.jpg)

(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6708/p5150026.jpg)

Meanwhile the MTO recently installed a bunch of Clearview signs on the QEW near the interchange with ON403 and ON407. They still seem to be testing Clearview as a bunch of new FHWA signs went up the same time as the Clearview ones.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 03, 2010, 10:32:46 PM
the 6 is not Clearview.  It is an old Ontario font.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ON/ON19450021i1.jpg)

rotate photo 180 degrees  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on June 04, 2010, 02:58:56 PM
^^^ Oh yeah it's is the old curly Ontario font, but the thing that threw me off was that I thought they stopped using that font a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on June 14, 2010, 09:35:56 PM
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...

(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TBbWj7aDPXI/AAAAAAAAKzY/qwMwcUrvlZo/s720/2010-Hike2%20076.JPG)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: luokou on June 15, 2010, 03:34:02 AM

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 :]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on June 15, 2010, 09:16:40 AM
Here are some recently installed Clearview signs in central PA - US 220/Lock Haven Bypass.

I think it looks pretty good.

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1297/4703193754_512fcd3181.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1280/4703193898_67c586c374.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4042/4703194170_02e9bdd0d7.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4702559067_0b60a33987.jpg)

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4703197566_a5a23f0d94.jpg)


Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 15, 2010, 10:14:20 AM


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 :]

it is indeed Highway Gothic C.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on June 15, 2010, 11:47:21 AM
Alright, my bad then... with all this talk of Clearview and me seeing new signs, I thought the worst, especially with the mixed-case lettering.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on June 15, 2010, 12:06:03 PM
Lefty JR, that last one looks like it is in Louisylvania.  :colorful:

/It's got a typical Louisiana sign bridge.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on June 15, 2010, 12:48:53 PM
Lefty JR, that last one looks like it is in Louisylvania.  :colorful:

/It's got a typical Louisiana sign bridge.

Indeed, the fifty-first state...lol!  Although, I've noticed IL and KY use the same what I call 'swing set" gantry and FL and KY on occasion use the same one lane overhead sign gantry.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Mr_Northside on June 15, 2010, 01:44:22 PM
I'm also sure the new exit numbers are "ready" for I-99?  Even though there is no funding to get the current missing sections up to standard anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on June 15, 2010, 03:58:52 PM
They are definitely I-99 exit tabs and mile posts along the route.  Apparently District 2 is all in with this, money or not...even with a 3 mile gap in the highway.  These mile markers end at the Clinton/Lycoming county line, which is the border between PennDOT districts 2/3.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 17, 2010, 11:00:13 AM
You are going to see more Clearview on I-95 in VA. They are in the process of replacing alot of the signs between I-495 and Richmond.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on June 22, 2010, 10:27:14 AM
It doesn't look like C-DOT is going anywhere with Clearview for a while...

I was in Denver over the weekend, and they recently replaced many of the BGSs on I-70 between I-25 and I-76 in Denver.  No Clearview, :clap: but what was interesting:

1)  The I-76 East exit signs which used to denote Ft. Morgan are now spelled out to read Fort Morgan.
2)  Both the I-76 and I-70 shields on the BGSs now carry the state name on them (non-neutered).

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: nyratk1 on June 29, 2010, 12:48:07 PM
The Town of Brookhaven installed a new batch of street signs with mixed case Clearview including around the block from me. :(
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on June 29, 2010, 03:19:14 PM
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.

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0259.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 29, 2010, 03:54:21 PM
That's Helvetica. Not even close to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on June 29, 2010, 04:07:30 PM
That's Helvetica. Not even close to Clearview.

Okay, thanks.  Never seen Helvectia on a roadsign before.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on June 29, 2010, 05:35:31 PM
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>

These are rather abundant in Jackson County, Florida last time I checked (about 6 months ago).  Drives me nuts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on June 29, 2010, 06:17:44 PM
Municipal governments love to post that type of speed limit sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on June 30, 2010, 11:16:25 PM
Yeah, I cringe whenever I've seen Helvetica on speed limit signs.  Helvetica is a good typeface, but let's keep it off of official street and road signs please.  
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 01, 2010, 12:33:51 AM
Yeah, I cringe whenever I've seen Helvetica on speed limit signs.

Well, it could be worse.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2411/2100246774_fe0879bd2a_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2100246774/)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2010, 12:40:35 AM
the sad part is, that sign replaces a perfectly good DC-US 29 marker with the same layout, black background and all.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on July 01, 2010, 07:29:29 AM
That's Helvetica. Not even close to Clearview.

Okay, thanks.  Never seen Helvectia on a roadsign before.

The Speed Limit signs and most of the regulatory and warning signs on Redstone Arsenal here in Huntsville are in Helvetica. The roads on RSA are maintained by the Army Department of Public Works.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on July 05, 2010, 04:34:52 PM
Here is a Clearview Sign on I-65:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/101_0290.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 05, 2010, 11:16:31 PM
I just got done with a short trip to Southwestern Virginia. Clearview is becoming more prevalent, not only on the interstates but the surface routes as well. A number of directional signs and the green mileage signs mounted below route markers are in Clearview in the southwestern Mountains.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2010, 01:14:15 AM
That holds true here in Hampton Roads too. Pretty much everything VDOT puts up is Clearview now, and most of the cities are using it too.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bugo on July 06, 2010, 01:33:06 AM
I don't give a fuck what the government says, and I don't give a rat's ass about their studies, but Clearview is far harder to read than the old FHWA fonts.  Especially when the sign has lots of text on it.  Something about the Clearview letters just runs together. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheStranger on July 26, 2010, 01:58:57 AM
Here's a Clearview retroreflective greenout plate in Southern California, on a button copy sign:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymondyue/4829216479/in/contacts/
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 26, 2010, 02:14:10 AM
That's not Clearview. That's some other typeface. Possibly Frutiger Sans, but don't quote me on that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on July 26, 2010, 11:40:52 PM
Is it Clearview?   (Interstate 89 Northbound, Vermont, sign installed 7/2010)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_LdJssxlEuTQ/TE5Re1DiQXI/AAAAAAAALJU/apVa1pY9Oro/s720/022.JPG)


Other examples here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/shadyjayvt/I89July2010#
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on July 26, 2010, 11:47:52 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 26, 2010, 11:48:58 PM


Yup, thats clearview  :ded:

ah fudge, I'm gonna be driving that segment in a few months.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: LeftyJR on July 27, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
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:

How do they pronounce "Barre" in Vermont?   Because in PA, there is a big debate on how to pronounce it when it is attached to Wilkes in "Wilkes-Barre"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on July 27, 2010, 09:48:46 AM
Bear-eee..... Not Bear

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 27, 2010, 11:09:08 AM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on July 27, 2010, 09:14:58 PM
Having grown up in Northeastern PA,  I always heard Wilkes-Barre pronounced as

Wilks Bear-uh
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on July 28, 2010, 12:13:41 AM
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. 



When I first came up here in 1990, I thought it was "Bar" but we learned pretty quickly it is pronounced the other way.... like "VERY" but with a "B". 

The Wikipedia page for Barre VT (pronunciation in (  )  if it makes sense to anyone)...
Barre (/ˈbæri/)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on July 28, 2010, 08:23:47 PM
After seeing photos of Clearview I though I wasn't a fan and hated it.  I live in a state (Connecticut) where Clearview is very rare (I've only seen on Clearview sign in CT).  I thought the letter spacing was off and thought that the old font was perfectly fine.  But then, I went down to the DC area where Clearview is everywhere and I must say it is growing on me.  I hate seeing it up close, but when one is travelling at 75 mph (breaking the speed limit) it is quite clear to read. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on July 28, 2010, 08:37:32 PM
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...

...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on July 28, 2010, 09:15:09 PM
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...

...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on July 28, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
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...

...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!
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.

I totally agree about Ohio's implementation.  I think they're doing a great job.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on July 28, 2010, 09:29:53 PM
If Ohio had done Clearview as button copy, I might have gone for it.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on July 28, 2010, 09:33:44 PM
I have to admit, the clearview signs in Delaware and Maryland don't look half bad. However, it would be awesome if they went back to the old FHWA fonts...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on July 28, 2010, 09:40:44 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 28, 2010, 09:43:59 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on July 28, 2010, 09:57:05 PM

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.
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. :)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on July 28, 2010, 11:52:33 PM
I also admit that Clearview has kind of grown on me a little too, the new Ontario test signs look pretty decent to me even though they're in Clearview, but I still don't like the Toronto ones like  this one (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1411.msg57811#msg57811) I've posted a few months ago. Of course I still prefer seeing FHWA series EM the most.


Asides:
Ontario is also making some new signs with FHWA series E along with EM and Clearview, I wonder if they're trying out which font is better.

We have some older signs still with lighting fixtures attached but I haven't seen a working one for a while now. They even stopped putting the catwalks on the new gantries too.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on July 29, 2010, 08:38:16 PM
I hate Clearview on signs in Southern Ontario, I saw the ones that were done on the QEW in Hamilton and hate them.  They don't seem to fit in with the gantries in the Golden Horseshoe. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on July 29, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
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.


I know the signs that you're talking about...they're on I-270 westbound at the I-71 intersection.  I believe that all of these signs will be replaced when this summer's bridge replacement project on I-270 between I-71 and US-23/High Street is completed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 06:08:55 AM
This slideshow on the NYTimes website is pretty interesting, albeit a bit dated (from 2007).  This provides an interesting view into the genesis of Clearview and it's initial implementations:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/12/magazine/20070812_CLEARVIEW_2.html (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/12/magazine/20070812_CLEARVIEW_2.html)

Additionally, here's a video discussing the change.  Feel free to disagree with their opinions.  LOL

http://thehardestyear.com/2009/07/signs-of-change-how-a-new-font-called-clearview-is-changing-americas-highways/ (http://thehardestyear.com/2009/07/signs-of-change-how-a-new-font-called-clearview-is-changing-americas-highways/)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on August 08, 2010, 03:17:57 PM
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. 

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vV2-Fg-7T40/TF8A2QJG5iI/AAAAAAAAB5s/EyBL2lftKDE/s640/IMG_2094.JPG)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on August 08, 2010, 08:34:10 PM
^ Are you sure that font's thin or are the numbers just peeling? Shields in Utah tend to do that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on August 08, 2010, 11:12:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shoptb1 on August 09, 2010, 08:40:39 AM
Those overhead signs on 315 (between Bethel and Ackerman) would make Caltrans blush. But after almost 30 years, they need to go.

The cave paintings in Lascaux, France would make CalTrans blush at their relative "newness", but that's a different story.   :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 16, 2010, 01:15:30 AM
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. 

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Cheyenne25Denver125.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2010, 01:29:46 AM
what was wrong with the old sign that it needed replacement after only two years?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 16, 2010, 01:35:24 AM
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...  And that one was a north-facing sign that doesn't get a whole lot of sun-exposure. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 16, 2010, 01:37:01 AM
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... 


oh, I apparently can't read.  still, though, the sign looks fine to me, and it's not like the legend needed updating.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2010, 06:57:38 PM
I don't have a picture, but I-195 in VA now has a Clearview sign on it - a sign for the University of Richmond, just before the VA 147 exit. I-195 was the last interstate highway in Virginia without any Clearview signs on it at all prior to this sign being installed (within the last two weeks).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on August 17, 2010, 09:47:35 PM
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. 

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Cheyenne25Denver125.jpg)
Well, we can't fault a sign for putting on a little weight in winter, now can we?  :biggrin:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 18, 2010, 12:00:43 AM
LOL. Too bad that that one won't likely "fatten up" ever again.   In another note, I saw a brand new 2010 exit/gore sign for northbound I-25 milepost 9 that was in Series E. (way too much traffic to try to get a photo, I was lucky to even notice the typeface and the date code)  But then I saw several other 2010 gore/exit signs in Clearview.  I suspect that maybe WYDOT  may have a certain amount of pre-made signs in storage from years past and they only put on the date code (bottom left) when they leave the warehouse.   Also, it appears they are not using Clearview on anything but Interstate guide signs, I saw a couple of off-interstate signs with a 2010 date on them in Series D today.  like this one as you meet the interstate at exit 80, as seen in this link: http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/CheyenneDouglas2010.jpg
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kj3400 on August 19, 2010, 09:53:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2010, 02:53:43 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on August 23, 2010, 04:01:52 PM
No picture at this time, but the NYSTA's put up another CV sign at the following location:

Thruway EB @ Exit 48A (NY 77 / Pembroke / Medina).

This one actually doesn't look messed up.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on August 23, 2010, 04:45:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on August 23, 2010, 06:28:03 PM
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.

I've seen those recycle ones at the Thruway service centers.  I'm certain the 48A sign is CV as well.

As to when it was done, the NYSTA is re-paving much of that stretch in both directions right now.  I'm guessing the new sign was put up within the past two weeks.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kj3400 on August 24, 2010, 09:50:03 AM
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).

I don't know. It seems to me though that would have been the case conisidering the entire interchange is symmetrical except for 11B sticking out like a sore thumb. I just can't see where they would have put the matching ramp.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on August 24, 2010, 04:53:40 PM
Okay, this is nit-picky as hell, but one thing has really been chewing at me.  The ampersand.  Look at this thing,

(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3436/ughpersand.jpg) (http://img715.imageshack.us/i/ughpersand.jpg/)

It looks like a visual representation of that "I got your nose" game you play with toddlers, it's disgusting.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest :banghead:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2010, 06:26:32 PM
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3436/ughpersand.jpg) (http://img715.imageshack.us/i/ughpersand.jpg/)
chest :banghead:
Is what it looks like to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 24, 2010, 11:03:15 PM
I guess Clearview isn't the only typeface to use an ampersand drawn like that, but until seeing this I was unaware of it.  I don't care for it at all - looks to me like it was drawn up by someone who could not quite remember how it was supposed to look. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 24, 2010, 11:31:42 PM
Yeah, that's a pretty ugly ampersand. The first time I saw one I had basically the exact same reaction as you.

Although, the ampersand was traditionally a ligature of the word "et", "and" in Latin, which is particularly apparent in this ampersand.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on August 30, 2010, 03:37:44 PM
Here's a not-so-good cell phone picture of the Clearview sign on IH 90 EB @ Exit 48A in Pembroke, NY:

(http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9456/clearview.jpg)

Best CV sign NYSTA's put together, bar none.  They put another one up on the Thruway WB lanes @ Exit 49, and it looks terrible.   :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 30, 2010, 04:25:43 PM
Clearview: So awful it distorts the fabric of time and space. :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:01:47 PM
I'm a huge fan of Clearview. 100% serious.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:07:02 AM
Here's another concept I made...

(http://www.quillz.net/pics/florida_toll_road_94.png)

I took the shield design that is used in both Prince Edward Island and in Florida (toll roads), and used the same gold-on-blue color scheme and went with Clearview numerals, 2-W.

I'm not sure at what point I woke up and realized I really liked Clearview, but it just happened. I've also noted it's not very common around here in California. Some new signs in Orange County have it, but that's the only place I've seen it. Of course, CalTRANS is notorious for reusing signs, so I imagine I won't be seeing Clearview in wide usage around here for a long time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:26:49 AM
I can't help but think how much better the numbers would be if they were uniform stroke thickness.  the fact that the vertical leg of the 4 is extra bold is ... highly distracting.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:31:36 AM
While I like Clearview, I definitely would agree with most (or maybe everyone) that the the three thickest weights (6, 5 and 4) are way too wide for everyday purposes. They work well on guide signs but nowhere else. I've found for shields and smaller applications, 1 is good for three-digit numbers and 2 and 3 can be used for double-digit and single-digit numbers, respectively.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on August 31, 2010, 12:41:53 AM
Here's a not-so-good cell phone picture of the Clearview sign on IH 90 EB @ Exit 48A in Pembroke, NY:

The text certainly looks better (though the exit tab leaves much to be desired), but there's still way too much green space.

I don't get how NYSTA can make consistently bad-looking signs. I really don't get it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:44:27 AM
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.

I thought they were 3 or wider.  maybe we're looking at different shields?

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19880962i1.jpg)

all the ones I remember look like this.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI20040751i1.jpg)

Michigan needs to stop that!

then again, they need to stop with the damn '78-spec ugly shields with no state name, silly margins, overlarge numbers, etc ...

HERE is what correct shields looks like.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MI/MI19550101i2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:51:40 AM
You know what... You're probably right. Looking at it again, I think it is 4-W.

Here's 2-W... (http://www.quillz.net/pics/75_cv_2.png)

Here's 3-W... (http://www.quillz.net/pics/75_cv_3.png)

And here's 4-W... (http://www.quillz.net/pics/75_cv_4.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:55:12 AM
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".

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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:59:42 AM
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".

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:17:10 AM
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.

well no, that is not the problem.  it is that the 1970/78 spec shield really did butcher the margins - a much smaller red crown, and far too thin margins.

wikipedia, so that's where everyone's getting their inept shield patterns!

www.aaroads.com/shields/generator.php

only correct shields.  have fun... :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 01:20:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 01:22:26 AM
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.

it is '70.  I have all kinds of vectors... email me at jake@aaroads.com
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 31, 2010, 01:23:01 AM
Wikipedia's shields are made to the specs of the 2004 SHS, which is substantially the same as the 1970.

What sort of irks me about those Clearview interstate shields–if you're going to go through the trouble of changing the number font, why not change the INTERSTATE as well (and it would have to be mixed-case–which is what Clearview was designed to facilitate [I'm just going to go nuts here with the recursion of the parenthesis and dashes in this sentence–yep, that'll do it])?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 03, 2010, 04:27:40 AM
...though, I still prefer good ol' FHWA Series E(M)!

E-modified is what got us into this mess in the first place.  When they did away with button copy, they should've gone to straight E.

I used to dislike Georgia's application of D on BGSs, but given the alternative (Clearview) I'll take the D, thanks.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 03, 2010, 08:54:15 PM
E only looks decent to me if it's tracked out to have the same intercharacter spacing as E(M). In that case, it comes out looking like a nice, clean, not-as-bulky version of Series E(M).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 03, 2010, 09:05:11 PM
Florida toll road shield concept... Clearview + gold and brown color scheme...

(http://www.quillz.net/misc/florida_toll_road.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on September 04, 2010, 09:06:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 04, 2010, 01:27:38 PM
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?
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:

(http://www.quillz.net/misc/Q-99.png) (http://www.quillz.net/misc/Q-132.png)

I use Clearview 1-W for 3di and 2-W for 2di. Depending on the width of the shield, I'll then use anything from 3-W to 6-W for a single-digit number.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 04, 2010, 08:51:24 PM
I am going to hell for this.
(http://www.denexa.com/forum_img/signs/cv-int.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 04, 2010, 10:04:38 PM
That doesn't look bad at all.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 04, 2010, 11:15:29 PM
Yes it does.

Scott, I hereby damn you to hell.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 04, 2010, 11:16:36 PM
Oh, damn.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on September 05, 2010, 01:54:53 AM
Shield us (pun intended) from that hideous excuse for an Interstate shield please. I love Clearview, but not like that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 05, 2010, 02:10:42 AM
Yes it does.

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 mean, looking at an I-45 shield in Clearview doesn't really do much to me one way or the other. I don't love it, I don't hate it, I can certainly live with it. I think the problem with real life Clearview shields, though, is that the numerals were simply too large within the shield.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on September 05, 2010, 03:41:14 AM
I don't like Clearview at all and that shield should be burnt (presumably in hell).

Also, the exchange between Scott, CL and deathtopumpkins brought back memories of the Dam Jokes thread.  A thread I was very fond of.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on September 05, 2010, 08:52:33 AM
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?

The thing that bugs me most about that Clearview Interstate shield is the use of mixed case.  Is there really a good reason for that?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2010, 10:42:13 AM
It's simply following the standard. Clearview isn't supposed to be used in all caps.

The problem with the mixed case here is a problem that a lot of fonts (including Highway Gothic, actually) have: that the uppercase I lacks crossbars on the top and bottom, making it look like a lowercase L. The crown seems to want to say "LNTERSTATE". And yeah, it's hideous.

But hey, at least the shield is state-named. That's worth something, right?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 05, 2010, 11:12:08 AM
Supposedly, mixed case is easier to read. Clearview gets its legibility boost by increasing the x-height (which is the ratio of the height of the lowercase letter x to the uppercase letter X). If you use Clearview in all caps, it nullifies that boost. So you may as well be using FHWA Series at that point.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on September 10, 2010, 12:43:35 AM
Here's a couple I saw last weekend in Cambridge, ON:

Clearview Turn Restriction:
(http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/1701/p9050641.jpg)

Clearview Warning Sign:
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8958/p9050642.jpg)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 10, 2010, 01:40:55 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2010, 01:49:19 AM
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?

more than anything, the '70 spec crown height combined with the '57 spec numbers.  that's always looked goofy to me.  Make it up in '57 spec layout, with FHWA numbers, and it may be pretty decent.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: burgess87 on September 10, 2010, 08:59:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 10, 2010, 11:52:10 AM
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.
Well, it probably will as time goes on.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: brownpelican on September 10, 2010, 01:19:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 10, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
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.
It's really not that bad at all, although I think 2-W works better for double-digit numbers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 10, 2010, 04:39:17 PM
Clearview numerals are hideous.  I'm sorry.

I'd rather see Helvitica numerals used over Clearview numerals.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 10, 2010, 04:58:08 PM
I'd rather see Helvitica numerals used over Clearview numerals.

I don't think I'd quite go that far! 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: national highway 1 on September 16, 2010, 03:25:05 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii001/i-h001_wb_exit_003_02.jpg)
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'.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 16, 2010, 03:37:09 AM
It is a very common mistake and there are plenty of signs out there which use Series E or E Modified instead of Clearview which have it too.  I attribute it to bad art in MUTCD 2003.  It was otherwise pattern-accurate but those responsible for the illustrations took the lazy way out and used flat fractions instead of constructing proper fraction rectangles, thus leading uninformed practitioners to think that flat fractions are now acceptable on signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on September 16, 2010, 10:52:00 AM

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'.

That also was probably a quick fix creation for the interchange that opened in February of this year. Eastbound has a similar temporary type sign (https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii001/i-h001_eb_exit_003_03.jpg). When formal signage goes up, the signage will likely display Kualaka'i Parkway and/or Kapolei. They plan some 12,000 homes out there and the four-lane road was built to accommodate the growth.

One thing I noticed with Hawaii's Clearview is that they sometimes used Clearview numbers in shields:
https://www.aaroads.com/west/hawaii001/i-h001_eb_exit_005_05.jpg
Also they have some end freeway signs (not pictured on the site) with black text on a yellow background in Clearview. I thought that was still not approved (dark Clearview text on a lighter background)?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 16, 2010, 01:34:10 PM
It hasn't been approved... Only light text against a dark background is approved, on an interim basis.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on September 16, 2010, 04:04:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 17, 2010, 12:07:26 AM
Kentucky uses some black on white, and Pennsylvania has black on yellow all over the place.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 17, 2010, 04:40:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: rawmustard on September 17, 2010, 11:47:26 AM
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.

Used. The error shields came during the first year or so after MDOT started using Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on September 19, 2010, 07:55:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 20, 2010, 02:30:07 AM
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.

Yup, Clearview still has interim approval only.  To be fully approved it would have to be incorporated into the MUTCD and one chance for that has already come and gone.  As far as I can tell, FHWA has four options with regard to Clearview:

*  Continue the present interim approval indefinitely

*  Write the status quo into the MUTCD during the next revision cycle (FHWA alphabet series remain the defaults, while Clearview remains an option for white-on-dark legend)

*  Abolish Clearview

*  Abolish the FHWA alphabet series

I do not foresee a choice being made anytime soon (e.g., in the next decade), or without a significant amount of additional testing and validation to see how well Clearview's claims of advantage over Series E Modified have survived widespread use.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: joseph1723 on September 21, 2010, 12:43:54 AM
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.

If I'm reading what the MTO says about Clearview correctly it seems that Canada allows using Clearview even in negative contrast signs which is why CV warning and regulatory signs are showing up here
Quote from: MTO
TAC has amended the MUTCD for Canada to allow the use of ClearviewHwy fonts
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheStranger on September 21, 2010, 12:51:38 AM


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.

This actually makes me ask:

In the 1950s, when we had several different types of legend-font arrangements in place (all-caps Series E, mixed case Series E, mixed-case directionals (in general), Division of Highways mid-1950s D caps and E(M) letters, and the standard of mixed-case E(M)...did a similar testing process lead to the nationwide (except Georgia) adoption of E(M) for highway sign legends?

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 21, 2010, 01:10:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 06, 2010, 07:04:57 AM
Quote from: MUTCD website
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.

Someone else quoted this in the thread on NY sign blades. Am I the only one who gets a chuckle out of the number of qualifications they had to put on that just so they could say it was a "modest" legibility improvement? Maybe FHWA isn't as confident about Clearview as we had thought.

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."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 06, 2010, 11:48:22 AM


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."

but the improvement is only for the left eye.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on October 06, 2010, 11:56:39 AM
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.

What is AGA? :confused:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 06, 2010, 12:35:58 PM
AGA = American Gas Accumulator Co. = one of the earliest manufacturers of letter-frame button copy.  It was subsequently absorbed into Stimsonite.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 06, 2010, 01:34:19 PM
AGA = American Gas Accumulator Co. = one of the earliest manufacturers of letter-frame button copy.  It was subsequently absorbed into Stimsonite.

here I thought Stimsonite was just a brand name, as made by AGA, and it was Avery-Dennison that brought that line from AGA.  Or maybe A-D bought AGA entirely.  I am not sure if AGA is still around.  Avery-Dennison still makes Stimsonite, but alas only in 2" and greater sizes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 06, 2010, 02:58:20 PM
Jake--I think you may be right about Stimsonite being the brand name for AGA's letter-frame button copy (I am going by memory here, and it's a bit hazy since it's been years since I've looked at button copy history in any detail).  The way I understand it, AGA's traffic-related product lines were taken over by Avery-Dennison, while the rest of AGA was absorbed into the Linde group.

http://www.us.lindegas.com/international/web/lg/us/likelgus30.nsf/docbyalias/nav_history#2

I am not sure how AGA got into traffic appliances in the first place.  Its parent company was Swedish and its first big product was a valve to prevent day-burning of acetylene gas (which was then very expensive) in lighthouses.

Edit:  These Wikipedia articles are also helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Dal%C3%A9n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGA_AB

Especially in England, AGA is famous for a type of cooker, called the "Aga stove," which has given its name to the "Aga saga" genre of fiction, exemplified by Joanna Trollope's novels.  So that is your connection between demountable button copy and English upper-class country life in three easy steps.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 06, 2010, 03:25:42 PM
I believe the connection from acetylene lighthouse lamps to traffic control devices is this traffic signal, which, indeed, has an acetylene lamp inside:

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/090683.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 13, 2010, 12:16:46 PM
New Clearview adopter:  Alaska DOT.  Currently advertised contracts 52095 and 52491 have pattern-accurate sign layout and sign summary sheets showing Clearview signs (Alaska DOT, it seems, does not do sign design sheets).

Edit:  I am a dolt:  I did not check the proposals books first.  Alaska DOT buries the sign designs there:  one design per page.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 13, 2010, 12:23:55 PM
I could've sworn I saw Clearview in Alaska in March.  Maybe I was just making that up?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 13, 2010, 12:30:55 PM
Alaska DOT maintenance forces could very well have been putting up Clearview signs for months.  This is, however, the first time I have seen them advertise pattern-accurate contract signing plans with Clearview.  I have actually not been keeping a close eye on Alaska DOT since their construction plans have tended not to interest me (they do a lot of 3R work with little signing), but now that I have found these two (and counted 19 sign design sheets in one job), I am going to try to go back in time and see what else I missed.

P.S.  These jobs are funded with IM money because the Glenn and Seward Highways count as Interstates:  90% federal, 10% state for non-freeways.  That's your tax dollars at work, folks.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 13, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Specimens of Clearview in Alaska, as shown on sign design sheets taken from the proposal books:

*  Roundabout diagrammatic (for the Dowling Road teardrop roundabouts off the New Seward Highway)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/e/e0/52491_52491_Specs_Page_0288.png)

*  Freeway exit direction sign (New Seward Highway)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/5/5c/52491_52491_Specs_Page_0270.png)

*  Route confirmatory (distance) signs (one on the Glenn Highway, the other on the Seward Highway)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/8/85/52491_52491_Specs_Page_0266.png)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/c/cf/52095_52095_spec_Page_0254.png)

*  Touristic/recreational interest "pointy sign"

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/5/58/52095_52095_spec_Page_0270.png)

These sign drawings are fairly typical of GuidSIGN output.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 13, 2010, 06:44:02 PM
That roundabout sign leaves something to be desired. I find it somewhat difficult to pick out the blocks of legend.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jemacedo9 on October 17, 2010, 11:06:30 PM
...just a quick comment, there have been a good number of BGS sign replacements in the Rochester NY area (mainly NY 390 and I-390), and I-390 and I-86 in the Southern Tier, mainly summer of '09, with some this year.  in all cases, Clearview was NOT used.  Orig Highway fonts were used, and as a bonus, County Route shields were added where appropriate!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on October 22, 2010, 01:00:59 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/exit_071_2010-08-11.jpg)

Clearview numbers have appeared in Kansas. Jeff Royston pic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 22, 2010, 01:02:19 PM
I have seen those elsewhere.  It was a distance sign with a little tiny shield.  The shield had a clearview number.  It may have been on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 22, 2010, 09:53:19 PM
KTA seems to use Clearview on new signage now. KDOT does not. Of course, KDOT has always been the agency with better taste (they just posted a bunch of 1957 spec I-35 shields...)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2010, 04:10:23 AM
That Exit 71 sign makes me wonder where I left my shoulder-fired recoilless rifle.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 23, 2010, 05:02:24 AM
Upon closer inspection, the shields are 2-digit shields scaled to 3-digit width. The petals are distorted....
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on October 24, 2010, 12:00:04 AM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/exit_071_2010-08-11.jpg)

Clearview numbers have appeared in Kansas. Jeff Royston pic.

Is it me or is that sign quite a ways off the pavement, compared to the blue sign in the distance?

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 24, 2010, 03:32:52 AM
I think they are the same distance from the back edge of the shoulder--both the advance guide sign and the services sign are in the unmowed portion of the right-of-way.  Neither sign has guardrail protection, so I think the KTA has gone for the standard rural Interstate belt-and-braces solution of using breakaway posts located well outside the clear zone (which for a 70 MPH design speed begins at the edge of the traveled way and runs for 30' to the side).

I am also 95% sure this sign was fabricated in KTA's own sign shop and installed by a KTA sign crew, rather than being designed by HNTB--which does all of KTA's contract plans for construction--and being installed by a contractor.  Years ago I visited the KTA's offices in Wichita in an attempt to get complete construction plans for Turnpike signing.  I was not successful, but I did learn that the KTA uses Flexisign for its in-house sign design work, as opposed to SignCAD (which HNTB uses for KTA work and which is also KDOT's standard sign design package) or GuidSIGN (SignCAD's principal competitor, which is the Oklahoma DOT standard).  Unlike SignCAD and GuidSIGN, Flexisign is a general sign design package which is not oriented specifically toward traffic sign design and is also used for business signs, etc.

I know that KTA stretches the two-digit Interstate shield for three-digit use.  As Scott notes, the same has been done to the two-digit Kansas route marker on this sign.  It wouldn't surprise me to discover that KTA also stretches the two-digit US route marker.  I think this happens because they don't have three-digit route markers in their Flexisign toolset and they just don't care enough to use the correct three-digit route markers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on October 25, 2010, 05:06:15 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/midwest/exit_071_2010-08-11.jpg)

Clearview numbers have appeared in Kansas. Jeff Royston pic.
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?)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on November 29, 2010, 07:31:19 PM

A short video I found about Clearview, and how it will (supposedly) eventually replace all FHWA Series signs.

It seems to focus mostly on the letters, though. I don't think they even mention the numerals once, leading me to believe the research has shown the numerals aren't any more or less distinguishable than the old FHWA Series numerals.

EDIT: And here's a more technical one about Clearview, specifically regarding its use in the state of Arizona...

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 30, 2010, 04:24:06 AM
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.  The governing principle appears to be that if the technical possibility exists that the expression might contain a fraction, the digits will appear in Series E Modified rather than Clearview.

Richard Moeur, a former MTR regular and Arizona DOT traffic engineer who manages many of their guide sign rehabilitations, has given a presentation on the difficulties of composing fraction rectangles correctly in SignCAD when Clearview is used.  By default (according to his presentation) SignCAD makes the fraction digits too small; the solution Moeur recommended was to develop SignCAD templates for fraction rectangles in Clearview, and in advance of that, to build the fraction rectangles manually rather than using the built-in shortcuts SignCAD offers for fraction rectangle assembly.  This was some time ago, however, and Arizona DOT has had plenty of time to develop and disseminate new fraction templates.  My guess (and at this point it is only a guess) is that the reversion to Series E Modified for distance expressions is deliberate and is based on a conclusion that Clearview digits are inherently less legible than Series E Modified digits, not just harder to make up at the correct sizes in SignCAD.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2010, 10:27:49 AM
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. 

I have seen such signs in the field.  We thought it was just an error, but apparently this is deliberate?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 30, 2010, 10:45:01 AM
Where exactly have you seen these signs?  (I ask because in Arizona I can no longer correlate sign installation with a construction contract award for sign rehabilitation.  For some reason which is not yet clear to me, ADOT has started carrying out sign replacement work through procurement contracts.)

The possibility that it might be an error did cross my mind, but I have seen multiple plan sets with this treatment and it is a pretty consistently followed rule that if a distance expression can have a fraction in it, it will appear in Series E Modified.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2010, 11:16:32 AM
Where exactly have you seen these signs?

I believe it was I-10 westbound between Tucson and Phoenix.  Close to Phoenix from what I recall.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on November 30, 2010, 11:21:07 AM
Hmm, this is interesting.  AFAIK, there haven't been any sign replacement jobs scheduled for I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix.  The closest I remember is 3rd St.-Ray Rd. (done by 2005).  Willcox-New Mexico state line was done as a procurement contract in 2007 or 2008, so I wonder if Tucson-Phoenix was done in a separate procurement contract between then and now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsign199qc on November 30, 2010, 12:36:43 PM
"Homer"? How about a "Simpson"? (laughs)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on November 30, 2010, 04:07:42 PM
"Homer"? How about a "Simpson"? (laughs)

What?  :-|
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsign199qc on December 01, 2010, 12:16:04 PM
In the sign at the top of the page.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 01, 2010, 01:02:30 PM
The line to which you are referring ("Homer 211") is one line in one of four sign design sheets posted one and a half months ago.  Can I kindly suggest that you quote what you are responding to in order to establish context?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsign199qc on December 01, 2010, 01:03:18 PM
OK, I know, but I forgot.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: nyratk1 on December 03, 2010, 01:50:08 PM
Here's a picture of the new Town of Brookhaven, LI, NY street signage in my neighborhood  :-/

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5665/img00014201012030948.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on December 03, 2010, 03:20:29 PM
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alps on December 03, 2010, 03:47:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 03, 2010, 05:43:11 PM
They look too large and jumbled-together for my tastes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on December 03, 2010, 06:49:58 PM
Anyone who has seen actual Clearview signs, is the 5-W-R weight supposed to be a E(M) replacement? It works out that way, as 5-W/5-B seems to be for replacing standard Series E. However, it seems that W-R (there is no B-R) seems to just shift everything to the right, rather than making the stroke a little thicker.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 04, 2010, 03:04:03 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2010, 11:22:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on December 04, 2010, 11:58:33 AM
That's interesting to note. So, then, new guide signs that wholly use Clearview are using 5-W, then?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on December 04, 2010, 01:20:47 PM
Some of the new signs I've noticed around Columbus have been in Highway Gothic.  I wonder if they were already made, or if there's a move back to the old?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on December 04, 2010, 03:46:19 PM
Well, Clearview has only been approved for positive contrast uses on an interim basis, so there's not yet any requirement to use it. Was it a positive contrast sign (white characters on dark background?)

I also believe there were some usability tests that showed that under certain conditions, Series E(M) might actually be more legible than the equivalent Clearview weight, which I believe to be either 5-W or 5-W-B. (Note that all the x-B weights are somewhat thicker than the x-W weights.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 04, 2010, 06:06:18 PM
That's interesting to note. So, then, new guide signs that wholly use Clearview are using 5-W, then?

Not necessarily.  In Texas the choice between 5-W and 5-W-R depends on the TxDOT district; some have picked 5-W while others have picked 5-W-R.  Arizona DOT and Michigan DOT use Clearview 5-W almost exclusively.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on May 12, 2011, 02:02:13 PM
Wow, no posts in this thread since December?!

I had a dream last night that NYSDOT switched to Clearview.:banghead:  I wasn't happy.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on May 12, 2011, 05:59:25 PM
Well, there haven't too many more developments regarding the font since then, I suppose. Though a few new signs in Orange County are using it now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 12, 2011, 06:16:58 PM
Wow, no posts in this thread since December?!

I had a dream last night that NYSDOT switched to Clearview.:banghead:  I wasn't happy.
You sure that wasn't a nightmare?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: architect77 on May 12, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Thank goodness the NCDOT hasn't tarnished the state with Clearview.....yet....
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 13, 2011, 12:12:20 AM
Many of the signs along I-64 in southern Illinois between the Indiana line and Mt. Vernon have been replaced with Clearview. It appears that new sheeting was placed over top of the existing extruded sheet panels. There is some small black lettering in the white border of each sign, it appears to read "(unknown" 10 10) so I presume these signs were replaced last October.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tdindy88 on May 13, 2011, 01:28:18 AM
I have noticed plenty of Clearview signs in the Chicago area when I was up there last December, in particular the Tri-State Tollway, Bishop Ford and Eisenhower Expressway and parts of the Dan Ryan near the Loop and I understand there are many more along the Illinois Tollway. And I was recently in Southwest Ohio where Dayton has some signs up along I-70 and I-75 around the southern part of the Dayton area, but I saw none around Cincinnati. Here in Indiana, all new signs have been Highway Gothic so it appears there is no push in the Hoosier State to move to Clearview despite being surrounded by all four states around us that now have Clearview in some of their signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on May 15, 2011, 10:34:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on May 16, 2011, 12:48:44 AM
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 have to say that I'm not as big a Clearview fan as I used to be (I've stopped doing conceptual shields with it), but that's because I learned that it really was not intended for 100% total sign replacement, at least not now. It seems it not being more optimal than Series E(M) on negative contrast signs is almost intentional.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on May 16, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
One of the first ones I ever remember seeing was in PA on I-90 WB past Erie about 7-8 years ago, and in MI at the rebuilt I-94/M-39 interchange.  I liked the PA sign as it was just a distance sign, but I hated the overhead BGSs in MI -- they just looked odd (perhaps clashing with the route number shields)?  Fortunately, CDOT in Colorado is still anti-Clearview as they are replacing older BGSs in my area with the same (but slightly smaller) fonts. 

And yes, CDOT is still anti-accurate when it comes to putting up correct format signs in Western Colorado.  For example, there is one big exit sign for Redlands Parkway (which is 2 miles off the Interstate), yet they do not direct drivers to it (nor mention it) once they exit.  I'll see what they do when they finish the BGS replacement project before I send them the list of errata.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 17, 2011, 07:52:40 PM
Spotted a Clearview services sign (white on blue) in Missouri on I-70 eastbound in Kansas City over the weekend. Got a photo but haven't checked to see how well it came out.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: iowahighways on May 17, 2011, 08:09:35 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WolfGuy100 on May 17, 2011, 08:37:19 PM
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)
*gasp* Look awful! I like it better if they were all caps or only on guide signs.

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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on May 18, 2011, 01:05:08 AM
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)
*gasp* Look awful! I like it better if they were all caps or only on guide signs.

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?
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.

However, the real issue with the sign isn't so much the font but rather the size and spacing: the font is way too big for the sign and there isn't enough yellow space. If the font was made smaller and the kerning reduced, it would look a lot better.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on May 18, 2011, 04:25:38 AM
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)

Perfect example of an application where Clearview should not be used, mainly because the negative contrast signing wasn't approved by FHWA...and well it just doesn't look right at all!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ftballfan on May 18, 2011, 09:18:09 AM
U-G-L-Y, you ain't go no alibi, you ugly, yeah, yeah, you ugly, whoo! - Referring to the Clearview warning sign. My mon did that cheer in high school and it describes that sign accurately.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 18, 2011, 10:33:01 AM
U-G-L-Y, you ain't go no alibi, you ugly, yeah, yeah, you ugly, whoo!

conveniently sidestepping the "you're" vs "your" distinction with a simple "you".  Very ... clever?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: english si on May 18, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
ftballfan, thanks for taking me back eleven years to Daphne and Celeste - I had a mental block on that song (and the other one, though a friend named her baby Celeste, which brought it back like yesterday's dinner, but I'd forgotten U.G.L.Y.).

Do a search on youtube for them, and the top video is them getting bottled the instant they come on stage at the Reading festival - a rock/metal/punk festival that has no truck with manufactured pop (or rap, as three years later 50 cent got bottled for being a rapper) so they were going to get it even if they were actually made good music - which wasn't the case. Add to them following Slipknot and the amount of bottles suggests that the crowd didn't have enough missiles to throw at them.

They both agree as to the deliberate lameness of their songs, but while Celeste sees Reading as a low-light, Daphne reckons it was the high point of their pop career.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2011, 05:13:31 PM
More Clearview news:  judging by construction plans sets, FDOT is still sticking stubbornly to Series E Modified, but OOCEA has succumbed to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WolfGuy100 on May 18, 2011, 05:45:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on May 18, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
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?

Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (http://www.expresswayauthority.com/)

OOCEA began using Clearview several years ago now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 18, 2011, 07:01:46 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on May 19, 2011, 12:54:36 AM
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)

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that Clearview looked too "friendly".  This sign is a perfect example of that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on May 19, 2011, 09:15:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 19, 2011, 11:32:11 AM
Are those available online somewhere?

Yes (at least for OOCEA project 408-113, which has the guide signing).

http://www.expresswayauthority.com/corporate/administration/contracting/Default.aspx

Go to "Register to view and download bid documents."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 19, 2011, 12:49:52 PM
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".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on May 19, 2011, 10:28:35 PM
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/
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ftballfan on May 21, 2011, 09:40:19 AM
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/
Good site.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 21, 2011, 03:13:06 PM
Another Clearview victim:  South Dakota DOT.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on May 21, 2011, 03:58:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 21, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
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.

oh Hell!  and here I thought that NDOT was getting things right - there is a guide sign coming off the Virginia City-Carson City route (NV-431?  I do not remember the number) which features a narrow 1961-spec guide sign US-395 shield (35x30 or something proportional) with Series C numbers.  that is the only 1961-spec sign I know of in Nevada: no more surface-level (black square) 1961-spec shields left ...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kniwt on June 04, 2011, 06:11:21 PM
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 second sign is up now as well. Here they are:

(http://zoza.com/~kniwt/IMGP3190.JPG)
(http://zoza.com/~kniwt/IMGP3192.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 04, 2011, 11:50:44 PM
^ Yup, those are the offenders. First installations of Clearview in Nevada, as far as I am aware.

That I-80 East sign is not designed well at all. The sign would have been much better if "Reno" had been left off of the control city legend. That would have allowed better spacing on the sign and appropriate centering of the "80 West" legend--"Downtown Reno" could be put on a supplemental sign, as was the case previously.  Besides, the long-distance traveler on US 395 has been in Reno for well over 11 miles prior to encountering this sign, so the usefulness of "Reno" is lost at this point.

It is nice to see "E. Second St" added at exit 67; it's been signed as "Glendale Ave" only for many years, despite the fact that the road is actually 2nd St where it crosses US 395 (2nd turns into Glendale upon entering Sparks about 1/2 mile east).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 05, 2011, 03:18:42 AM
Here are recreations of the new Nevada clearview signs posted by Kniwt with an edit on the I-80 sign (agreed with Roadfro... "Reno" should not be on the sign... you're already in Reno!)...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/395_exit67_cv.png)
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/395_exit68B_cv.png)

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...  :-(
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 05, 2011, 04:39:14 AM
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 ClearviewFHWA? I'm no font guru, but it doesn't quite look the same to me...  Anyway, I think Clearview 5W is supposed to be the "equivalent" to FHWA E(M)...your sign recreations look pretty close to what's in the field now.

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. The MUTCD website doesn't have a list of what agencies have requested to use Clearview, so I don't know whether NDOT has sought permission formally or not.  In any event, given that its taken this long for Caltrans to add exit numbers and start doing away with button copy, I highly doubt California will be switching to Clearview anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 05, 2011, 11:38:33 AM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 05, 2011, 12:13:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: huskeroadgeek on June 05, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
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/
Good site.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2011, 03:46:31 PM
I knew Thruway signs were ugly, but I had no idea it could get this bad:

very poor proportions there - tiny shields, huge text
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on June 05, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
I knew Thruway signs were ugly, but I had no idea it could get this bad:

You should see some of the new ones in Buffalo! The new ones WB for the US219 exit are particularly bad...not only do they have the new multiple-arrow signs, but the tiny US219 shield also has Clearview numbers! Yuck!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 05, 2011, 05:28:48 PM
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!

Got my wires crossed while typing. That's what happens when I post while tired...

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)...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 05, 2011, 05:32:51 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 05, 2011, 05:54:17 PM
Is the word "EXIT" really in Clearview? I couldn't really tell to be honest.

I believe it is, though I can't exclude the possibility that "EXIT" is in Series D.  I can however guarantee that it is neither Series E nor Series E Modified.

Quote
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!

It varies, but what you describe is the dominant approach ("control cities" = primary destination legend).  I have seen PennDOT signing plans with Clearview exit tabs and other signing plans with Clearview shield digits.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: The Premier on June 05, 2011, 07:58:40 PM
So the word "EXIT" is in Clearview while the numbers are FHWA gothic?

Yep, although it is difficult to see it IMO. :nod:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 06, 2011, 10:30:08 PM
In both of the Nevada signs, "EXIT" is in fact in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 07, 2011, 02:20:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: InterstateNG on June 07, 2011, 11:05:21 AM
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 was in western/central Ohio last weekend and there's Clearview in those locations as well.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 10, 2011, 12:50:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on June 10, 2011, 12:54:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 10, 2011, 01:15:31 AM
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.
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.
(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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 10, 2011, 01:18:46 AM
A mix of the two looks ugly, in my opinion.

But not nearly as ugly as Clearview numerals...or Clearview itself, but I guess at this point it's rather pointless to rant about that, since we appear to be stuck with it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 01:39:55 AM

(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.

Not that it would make it look anywhere near as good as the one on the left, but it would help.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 10, 2011, 01:49:40 AM
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.

Not that it would make it look anywhere near as good as the one on the left, but it would help.
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).

Here's a better comparison of the FHWA vs Clearview Digits...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/cv-fhwa-digits.png)
The biggest problem I have with the clearview digits are the 2, 6 and 9 and, to a lesser extend, the 4 and 5.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on June 10, 2011, 06:10:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 10, 2011, 06:31:44 AM
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.

By 'curse,' I meant something that PennDOT has been known to do. I actually don't mind them mixing it up a bit...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 10, 2011, 10:04:55 AM
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]

yeah, now that I look at it, I see what you are saying.  I have the Roadgeek Clearview set but never actually use them.  Hah.  looks like 0 is randomly thinner-stroke as well.

Quote
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 really dislike the 5.  I am trying to figure out why I don't like the 6 and 9 because it is very similar to classic New York font, which I do like.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19600091i1.jpg)

I have no problem with the notched 4 as it looks fairly similar to old block-font 4.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CO/CO19280402i1.jpg)

I also think the head on the 1 is way too exaggerated.  and for some reason don't like the 7.

3, 8, 0 are fine. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on June 10, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
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.
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.
(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?

Right, which is why I say keep the route shields in Highway Gothic. I wholly, vehemently despise route shields with Clearview numerals. But... I'd rather keep the exit tab numerals Clearview, as well as any other numeral on the sign (e.g., the "25" on 25th St). Dunno, that's just personal preference (Utah, in its limited application of Clearview, does it that way and I don't mind).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on June 10, 2011, 01:43:02 PM
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.

Had Clearview been the standard for all these decades, I wonder what our reaction might be to the FHWA Series fonts, had they been brand new.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CL on June 10, 2011, 01:48:13 PM
Both of those posted shields don't look very good in the first place, though.

The shield is in desperate need of series B or C numerals, if you ask me, a la (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/I-215_%28big%29.svg/70px-I-215_%28big%29.svg.png). A pet peeve of mine has always been the three-digit shields whose numerals look like they're floating at the top.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 10, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2011, 01:19:26 AM
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.

Sent you a private message with the e-mail address to use.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on June 11, 2011, 01:57:24 AM
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.
6 and 9 are my least favorite Clearview digits (I like the 1-x iteration best.) The 5 looks fine to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mjb2002 on June 12, 2011, 02:37:16 AM
I made a FHWA, Helvetica and Clearview version of possible replacements for the current all caps street sign along the street where we live.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-hrjAfXU3Hlc/TfRdLoBDCOI/AAAAAAAAAes/Htdothhv6EM/blue%252520Allendale%252520street%252520sign%252520-%252520Copy.jpg)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MHTS6e1KP8s/TfRdMH2xwFI/AAAAAAAAAew/u4zkY3a5rRU/ALLENDALE%252520AV%252520Helvetica.jpg)

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Mk_KAXs_TUs/TfRdMd3Um0I/AAAAAAAAAe0/B52z3Ri-ta4/s912/ALLENDALE%252520AV%252520Clearview.jpg)

The signs are one foot in height and of various lengths.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on June 12, 2011, 04:54:25 AM
^^^

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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 12, 2011, 11:27:08 AM
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:

I am not fussed about it personally, but it is a major reason it is so hard to design Clearview signs in accord with freeway guide sign design rules (the same rules apply to signs using Clearview and FHWA Series E Modified, except of course that Clearview does not have lowercase loop height equal to three-quarters capital letter height, so you just have to use three-quarters capital letter height measured from top to bottom of capital letters only for vertical spacing).  Lowercase i is even worse than lowercase l, which is actually the same height as other lowercase letters with ascenders, like d.  When I have to combine Clearview text blocks, I correct for the excess height of the lowercase letters with ascenders with separate scripts for l, d, etc. and for i.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 12, 2011, 03:33:29 PM
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:

IIRC, that is one of the "selling points" of Clearview. Several of the lowercase letters are taller than uppercase letter heights... I think this goes towards improved legibility at a distance.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mightyace on June 13, 2011, 12:23:13 PM
^^^

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 13, 2011, 01:26:54 PM
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.

bear in mind, also, that Clearview tends to look a lot better in the field than in our photos and our diagrams that we discuss here.  The reason is mainly halation - some of the more odd stroke variations actually are designed to cancel out, given standards of reflectivity and intended reading distance.  

this is especially noticeable at night.  I've always disliked Clearview during the day, but at night it isn't nearly as bothersome.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 14, 2011, 03:28:52 PM
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.



(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/eb3498f8.jpg)

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/4e098bcb.jpg)

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/87c18418.jpg)

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/ecb2cc34.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2011, 04:40:16 PM
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.


All four of those examples look like garbage to me as well. Similar, but worse Clearview spacing (which I have mentioned before):

(http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/northeast/i-079_nb_exit_180_01.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/northeast/i-079_nb_exit_180_01.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 14, 2011, 04:46:09 PM
^^^^

I don't like the way the lowercase letters aren't aligned with the bases of the uppercase letters on that sign. Or, put differently, if the bottom of the lowercase letters is the baseline (that is, where you'd put your letters if you were writing on lined paper), the uppercase letters seem to be straddling that baseline. Yuk. The numerators on the fractions are too close to the main numbers as well. I've seen at least one Clearview sign around here where they didn't use a fraction and instead made it the way we commonly type fractions, i.e., 1/2, but off the top of my head I can't remember which sign that was. I think the fractions on the signs I posted above look OK, but the ones on the sign you posted are hideous.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: formulanone on June 14, 2011, 09:57:44 PM
To me, Clearview isn't awful, but those "l"s remind me of why I can't stand it; it's just like the Windows font "Trebuchet":

They don't lead into the next letter, but they distract, in my opinion. The the finishing "stroke" of the "a" and the "d" aren't the same, which is also annoying. Otherwise, Clearview does look quite crisp when spaced properly; I see it outside of Florida, and sometimes it looks right, other times...not so much.

That said, I like my "traditional" highway fonts, like FHWA. Helvetica looks okay, but I think it doesn't work well for a large block of text, or when viewed at speed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2011, 10:21:43 PM
Clearview is pretty bad, but it is worlds ahead of Helvetica/Arial/Univers/Grotesque*/etc.

*about the least grotesque font you can imagine.  no idea why they call it that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 14, 2011, 10:23:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2011, 07:35:41 AM


*about the least grotesque font you can imagine.  no idea why they call it that.
Maybe it was the first?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2011, 07:54:17 AM
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.

I thought the same thing–they look like boldface. I didn't mention it because I wanted to see if anyone else thought the same and I didn't want to plant the idea in anyone's mind. Those letters almost remind me of the "drop cap" style used in some books to start chapters (except that they don't drop below the baseline)–you know, the style where the chapter starts with one very big capital letter at the start of the first paragraph.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 15, 2011, 11:14:40 AM
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.

Nope, the capital letters aren't bolded--they just look that way by comparison with the lowercase letters because they are taller and so have greater stroke width.

If the capital letters were sized in correct proportion to the lowercase letters, the l in "Clarendon" would be taller than the C.

This mismatch is not unique to Clearview.  There are a lot of poorly trained sign designers out there who misunderstand the MUTCD's references to different sizes for uppercase and lowercase letters and they make this mistake in Series E Modified as well as Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 15, 2011, 11:19:48 AM
Clearview is pretty bad, but it is worlds ahead of Helvetica/Arial/Univers/Grotesque*/etc.

Why the dislike of Helvetica/Arial/Univers?

I much prefer sans serif fonts to serif fonts, especially in large size applications such as signs and newspaper headlines. Much cleaner and easier (for me, at least) to read than serif fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 15, 2011, 11:32:46 AM
Why the dislike of Helvetica/Arial/Univers?


I just find it a generally unattractive font, and badly overused.  I actually don't think Helvetica is any better-looking than Arial; there's a few subtle differences here and there but for the most part it's identical. 

FHWA 1948 Series D is a significantly better-looking font than Helvetica, for a similar width.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 15, 2011, 08:15:18 PM
Helvetica and Arial can look fine in certain situations. Like in an office, having all of the door signs in Helvetica is appropriate. All of the incidental signage where I work (stuff like No Smoking signs, "This Window Closed", informational signs, section name signs, etc) are done in white on black with hollow stroke Arial (like you set the stroke to white in Inkscape but didn't set a fill). It actually looks pretty classy.

Put Arial or Helvetica on a road sign and it's just out of place. I think Helvetica looks best in black and white. It's all business It doesn't play as well with bright colors like you would see on a road sign.

And I'll agree that a big part of how good Clearview looks is what state is using it. Texas's Clearview implementation makes it look pretty good. Oklahoma is as hit or miss with it as they are with FHWA Series–mostly miss.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 15, 2011, 08:51:54 PM
Good clearview usage:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2375/5769211580_455264ed9b_z.jpg)

Okay clearview usage:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5540817035_01d0a4885c_z.jpg)

Horrible clearview usage:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TPRFc8f4al8/TPQ8IvuWbJI/AAAAAAAAkck/D5GQFeU7mYk/s640/IMG_0713.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 16, 2011, 12:00:39 AM
My point is proven. The surefire way to make Clearview ugly is to use a too-large font size.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 16, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Normally I'd counter that comment with something about Highway Gothic looking awful when the font size is too large too, but you have a point. There appears to be something about Clearview that makes it easier to layout a sign poorly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2011, 08:13:58 AM
My point is proven. The surefire way to make Clearview ugly is to use a too-large font size.

Or to make the sign too small. The sign shown above for VA-236 is exactly the same size as the old sign, which was replaced solely (as far as I can determine) for the sake of using Clearview. I think if the signs had been made bigger, the font might not look so disproportionately large. But all the signs at that interchange look awful now, and on the northbound side there's one where they abbreviated "Turnpike" as "Trpk." Not sure what was going on there, although there are some street signs in Annandale that say "Trnpk," so maybe they just can't decide.

Virginia has some decent-looking Clearview signs on the Beltway as it's rebuilt, but I'm not sure who made the signs–VDOT or Fluor-TransUrban (the consortium building HOT lanes).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on June 16, 2011, 02:32:17 PM
Horrible clearview usage:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TPRFc8f4al8/TPQ8IvuWbJI/AAAAAAAAkck/D5GQFeU7mYk/s640/IMG_0713.JPG)
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on June 16, 2011, 02:37:24 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on June 16, 2011, 02:41:16 PM
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...

Alabama has been doing that on it's Clearview installations. A few signs on I-565 westbound have been replaced here in Huntsville with Clearview, and they are exactly the same as the old signs, even one sign that still omits the diagonal exit arrow right before the gore point.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2011, 02:44:24 PM
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 rather prefer the old style of not putting a space in between the exit number and the suffix.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 16, 2011, 04:32:46 PM
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.

That style of writing fractions (which I call "inline fractions") is an old problem and isn't really anything to do with Clearview specifically--though Clearview has introduced its own problems with fractions (see below).  When the Millennium MUTCD came out, all the artwork was redone specially for it, was not pattern-accurate, and used inline fractions although the tabulated height values for numerator and denominator were unchanged.  When the 2003 MUTCD was released several years later, the artwork was done again and was pattern-accurate, but the fractions were still inline.

In the traffic engineering community it is common to accept MUTCD illustrations as indicative although, strictly speaking, the text and tables are authoritative.  In the wake of the Millennium and 2003 editions of the MUTCD it became very common to see sign design sheets showing inline fractions.  The artwork for the 2009 MUTCD, which is greatly changed from that of the 2003 edition, corrects this particular error and as a consequence, it is becoming rarer to see inline fractions on sign design sheets.

Clearview and fractions have led to a separate problem.  When Clearview was first rolled out around 2003, SignCAD was the only major signing CAD package which supported Clearview directly.  Unfortunately it was soon discovered that SignCAD's default fraction composition routine resulted in Clearview fractions with numerators and denominators which were so small they failed to comply with MUTCD specification.  Arizona DOT (and possibly some other SignCAD-using agencies) got around the problem by producing their own custom fractions, complying with MUTCD requirements, which were copied over into sign drawings as needed.  Other agencies (including quite a few TxDOT districts) simply used the wrongly sized fractions, or avoided the problem by using inline fractions instead of fraction rectangles.  The last I heard about this particular issue (several years ago), SignCAD was planning to get around the problem by overhauling fraction composition in a future version of SignCAD.  I do not know if this has happened.

As others have said upthread, the real problem with the I-95/Springfield signs is bad composition, but I frankly doubt that signs using Series E Modified would have looked much better if the same capital letter height were used.  Even if the street names were composed at a smaller font size--which they should have been and were in the original sign design sheets--the overall panel sizes are too small to permit normal interline spacing (which is the same for Clearview as it is for Series E Modified, except of course that all dimensions have to be referred to capital letters because Clearview ascenders "stick up").  My guess is that the message revisions were not just about changing Series E Modified to Clearview, but also about geeing up the size of the main legend, probably from 13.3" uppercase/10" lowercase to 16" uppercase.  If panel size is not changed (as is implied by the use of overlays), this results in a very cramped appearance.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2011, 05:20:42 PM
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.

Sorry about the water in the picture. It was starting to drizzle a bit when I took the picture.

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/0cda10c3.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on June 16, 2011, 11:56:29 PM
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)

Ew!!!  *shudders*

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)

I never thought I'd ever say this, but I kind of like the Clearview CA-99 shield.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on June 17, 2011, 01:42:47 AM
I really have no issues with Clearview route shields as long as the legend maintains a good proportional size. Unfortunately, most real world Clearview shields use huge legend, so it just looks bad.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 19, 2011, 09:35:00 PM
Parcs Québec (who maintains the national parks, wildlife reserves and other nature-oriented and historic areas) seems to be intensively working on replacing all their yellow-on-brown signs from wooden + Helvetica to aluminum + Clearview.

Even signs in their hiking trails are now Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 20, 2011, 04:54:55 AM
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.

There's actually Clearview scattered all over the place in Fairfax County, and most of the BGSes on I-395 are Clearview now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on June 24, 2011, 10:45:55 PM
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.

Well, to reply to myself, it seems that the Clearview on US 395 in Reno isn't a goof. I drove by today and noticed two more sign gantries have been put up in the last week, each using Clearview. The sign for I-80 east is just as atrociously designed as the 80 west sign discussed on page 24 of the thread.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on June 25, 2011, 08:11:59 AM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: realjd on June 25, 2011, 05:13:39 PM
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.]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ftballfan on June 27, 2011, 10:51:32 PM
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.

US-31 in Northern/Western Michigan is kind of weird when it comes to Clearview. Heading south out of Traverse City, the signs are in Clearview until you hit Scottville. Between Scottville and the US-31 freeway (only ~5 miles) there is little if any Clearview. As soon as the freeway picks up again, you start seeing Clearview again.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on July 02, 2011, 04:35:46 AM
This is a followup, one that I'd never have thought I'd make!
Below is part of a post I made a while back in this thread, regarding the Northbound Wyoming I-25 exit #25 gore sign. 

I had happened to have pictures of the previous gore signs and when the 2006 one got smashed into, I figured it would be replaced by a Clearview, and I was right.  (ugh!)

Well, I drove by there yesterday, and I totally didn't notice til I was almost past the sign there was yet ANOTHER new sign there, and this time... no Clearview!  I was shocked, because WYDOT has been putting up Clearview signs all over the place (interstates only) the last couple of years.   I had to turn around and go back there and verify what I'd seen - yep a little "11" in the corner for 2011, and it's Good Old Series E.  !

So anyway, here's part of my post about the "three little gores" followed by a picture taken yesterday of the latest.   




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)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit25-2011-SeriesE.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on July 02, 2011, 04:50:46 PM
^ Another question in relation to that sign: Why is Wyoming DOT using that ugly design for the exit gore sign?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on July 02, 2011, 11:38:25 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on July 03, 2011, 01:22:50 AM
In never thought those "compact" gore signs to be that ugly.  In fact, that first huge EXIT 25 sign always seemed to me to be "wrong" which was why I took a picture of it, not long after I got my first digital camera.  

I'm not sure what's up with the gore signs - WYDOT uses this style but sometimes you'll see Clearview and sometimes FHWA lately.  I speculated that maybe the Series E were "old stock" signs kicking around the warehouse, but that wouldn't explain why they changed that EXIT 25 one to a new Clearview then two years later, back to a new Series E.    :hmmm:

Mostly, I'm used to seeing things like this one - before/after:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit16GoreCompare.jpg)

But then there's signs like these, another recent replacement in Series E
and older replacement in Series D and Clearview.

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit54-SerE-2011s.jpg)(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/EXIT158-CV.jpg)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/2009GoreSigns.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 03, 2011, 09:57:57 AM
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.]

Indeed this proved to be the case. Wednesday afternoon we drove from Viera to Disney World and saw the Clearview signs as soon as we turned onto the Bee Line. What was funny was when we left Disney on Friday evening to drive to Green Cove Springs. I-4 was at a standstill so I took FL-417 all the way around to Sanford (worked fine) and it was very amusing how the southern part of the road (south of the Bee Line) is 95% Clearview and the northern part of the road (which is run by the Turnpike) had no Clearview. While it's not so odd to see both on the same road, it's unusual in my experience to see such a stark demarcation of near-total Clearview on one part and NO Clearview on the other.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on July 03, 2011, 02:45:11 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on July 04, 2011, 01:38:27 AM
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...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/G84-3.png)

FWIW, I created a new topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4883.0) on exit gore signs with some comments on what Caltrans' District 6 has been up to in the Fresno area (using FHWA-style gore signs instead of California's narrower signs).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2011, 03:49:12 PM
While driving through St. Petersburg on I-275 I noticed a couple of blue service signs that appeared to use all-caps Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 11, 2011, 04:00:29 PM
BTW, it's not really Clearview-related, but a thread on fonts seemed to be the right place to ask–what is the font that Georgia uses on most of its BGSs? It's not Clearview and it doesn't look like any of the Gothic fonts. The only other place where I can recall seeing the same font used in Georgia was on the Outer Loop of the Beltway in Virginia between I-66 and US-50 where one of the signs for US-50 was in that "Georgia font." (The sign has been removed as part of the HOT construction project and the new signs going up all use Clearview.) I find the "Georgia font" to be easier on the eyes in terms of its appearance than either Clearview or Gothic, but I find Clearview the easiest to read at a distance.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2011, 05:07:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 11, 2011, 05:35:38 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on July 11, 2011, 05:37:45 PM
It is mixed-case Series D (as indicated on the very few pattern-accurate sign design sheets GDOT produced before they reformed and resumed using Series E Modified and started drawing up plans in SignCAD).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
the uppercase letters are D.  the lowercase I believe are very close to D as well.

the FHWA lowercase alphabets were not standardized until the early 2000s; each state seems to have come up with a very slightly different interpretation, though most states seemed to use the alphabets which (I believe) Kansas developed by the 60s, with some minor variations here and there.  I know Florida made up their own and that looks noticeably different, as does Washington's (or is that City of Seattle?  either way - there's some interesting 1960s and 70s mixed case signs in that area)... but what you see there on the Georgia sign is close enough to what FHWA settled on by 2002 to just be called FHWA 2002.

this is something JN Winkler mentioned a few months (years?) ago in some thread somewhere; maybe he could recall more accurately than I just did.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on July 11, 2011, 07:08:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 07, 2011, 07:15:25 PM
Here's another Wyoming Clearview replacement - one that I'd been expecting ever since I saw it had gotten damaged some time ago.  The previous sign was one of those that WYDOT put up in 2001 with some stretched mixed-case letters. 

Before:
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasCasperOddballTypeface.jpg)
Now:
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/DouglasCasperClearview.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 07, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on September 07, 2011, 07:31:27 PM
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.

Not so sure it's the font so much as the kerning.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 07, 2011, 07:40:10 PM
If the kerning was left alone, then the sign probably could have fit Series D on there. When using a thin font like B or C, the kerning shouldn't be that wide, it makes the sign hard to read.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 12, 2011, 11:00:17 PM
And here's yet another Wyoming Clearview replacement.  There's tons of examples I could come up with, I'm only posting ones that show something I think is notable or unexpected.   Earlier on I mentioned how the gore sign for NB Exit 25 (I-25) had been replaced a few times and turned in to Clearview, only to get changed back to Series E.  I still don't know why, that exit does not see much traffic at all.   Well, it's not the only one, I spotted this fresh 2011 sign earlier today for the MUCH busier NB Exit 7 in Cheyenne.  I got a photo of it, then I looked to see if I had any pics in my archives of the what it looked like after they resigned that whole stretch a few years back in CV, and I did.  

I'd like to know how the sign shop for WYDOT functions.  There's just no rhyme or reason when it comes to how they are signing the Interstates.

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/EXIT7-Cheyenne-ClearviewThenHG.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on September 13, 2011, 04:36:33 AM
^ I'd like to know who designs these signs for WyDOT... I think I've mentioned this before, but the design of those exit signs is hideous--horrible layout and wrong arrow.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 13, 2011, 11:31:49 AM
What's wrong with the arrow?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 13, 2011, 11:48:26 AM
What's wrong with the arrow?

my guess is "too big".  seems like it's squeezed into all the available space.  making it 80% as big as it is now would, I think, aid recognition from a distance of both the arrow and the word EXIT.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 13, 2011, 11:58:56 AM
No, it's that it should be a Type A arrow–tapered shaft. The straight-shaft arrow is usually intended for things like being stuck next to one-line destinations on conventional road signage, where the tapered shaft arrow wouldn't work. (And usually doesn't have a shaft that long in those instances.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 13, 2011, 12:32:51 PM
I'm so used to them that I don't even notice the arrows.  Looking through my photos though I found this one a few miles up was the only one like it I've seen... mini-arrow.

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/EXIT11-CV.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 13, 2011, 01:04:21 PM
Wyoming DOT doesn't do all of its signing in-house (i.e., at a departmental sign shop)--some of it is contracted out.  However, signing plans are developed in-house.  In the latest Wyoming DOT pure sign replacement contract, I804254 (advertised August 2011 and covering I-80 between Exits 187 and 290), a mixture of Clearview and Series E Modified is used even on new installations.  The one thing that is consistent is that arrows with untapered shafts are always used even in contexts where Type A arrows would be preferred, such as gore signs, exit direction signs, conventional-road guide signs where the arrow is on its own line, etc.

In general, Wyoming DOT signing plans are pattern-accurate but consist just of sign layout sheets--no sign design sheets.  I presume that sign shop drawings are generated prior to fabrication and in principle this affords an opportunity for last-minute changes, but it sounds like conditions in the field match the contract plans fairly closely as regards typeface and arrow usage.

This is a typical Wyoming DOT sign layout sheet.

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/f/f9/11x17_august.i804254_Page_0077.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on September 14, 2011, 06:51:19 AM
What's wrong with the arrow?

Scott nailed it. Instead of using a Type A arrow (tapered shaft arrow typical for exit direction signs and exit gore signs) or even a Type B arrow (shorter tapered shaft arrow suggested for certain exit direction sign usages), they've used an oversized Type D arrow (meant for conventional roads).

The use of a particular type of arrow in the MUTCD is guidance, not standard (except for certain restrictions on the down and angle arrows). So it's not technically wrong...but it looks wrong to me...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 16, 2011, 12:22:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2011, 07:48:02 AM
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.

I got glasses two years ago (made me feel old!) but I find the Clearview signs are still easier to read at a distance than the old ones. The characters seem better-defined. But some Clearview signs are definitely ugly, no doubt about it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jdb1234 on September 16, 2011, 04:35:22 PM
Here's one from Alabama:

(http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx260/jdbarnes1234/100_0421.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: txstateends on September 17, 2011, 08:52:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on September 17, 2011, 01:28:54 PM
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.

I think there should probably be a little more space (maybe an inch more? not sure how big the sign actually is) between the bottom two lines, but the error is not of great magnitude.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on March 24, 2012, 04:04:51 PM
Sorry to be reviving, but I'd like to share some Clearview street signage from my area.

In Salinas:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7226/6865712426_67797b44ea_c.jpg)

In Monterey:
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7088/6865714614_28c3d1bcd5_c.jpg)

I particularly like the Monterey example better, because the "Ave." part of the sign is in a smaller font than the street name, which I really like.

In my opinion, I actually like Clearview. I actually enjoy seeing Clearview out there.

EDIT: There was also this "Your Speed" sign in my neighborhood that wasn't up for long, and it's also in Clearview.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7135/7011845273_6a74635417_c.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 27, 2012, 04:48:03 PM
Reviving this thread because I thought it more appropriate than starting a new one. Don't know why I've never noticed this before, but it sure looks to me as though the font used by our DirecTV DVRs is some version of Clearview–with the exception of the "1" because Clearview doesn't have the horizontal bottom on that number–or else something extremely similar. In this picture I find it noticeable primarily in the word "Dallas."

Compare to the font samples here. (http://clearviewhwy.com/TypefaceDisplay/index.php) Clearview 6-W strikes me as being very close to what DirecTV's using.

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/bccbac01.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on July 27, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
That looks similiar to the Trebuchet font, but not exactly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 27, 2012, 07:31:59 PM
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

This is the first overhead gantry along CT Route 15 in Stratford, just after the Merritt Parkway started on the Sikorsky Bridge behind the camera.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on July 27, 2012, 07:55:34 PM
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

That would be ITC Stone Sans (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/itc/stone-sans/), I believe.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Anonymity Lane on July 27, 2012, 08:02:59 PM
I looked at the other versions of full-width Clearview (ClearviewText and ClearviewADA) and they weren't exact matches; it's possible that it's custom-made for DirecTV. (I tried running it through WhatTheFont: http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/ (http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/), but that didn't help. Maybe I could try the forum aspect of it.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: BigMattFromTexas on July 29, 2012, 07:42:37 PM
Holy piss.  :-o I can't believe two things.. 1) My illiteracy when this was first posted.... 2) That I liked Clearview!? Maybe the more I saw it, and more I saw Highway Gothic, I came to my senses. Now I can't stand the sight of Clearview..
 BigMatt
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on July 29, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
I still like Clearview. Not quite as much as the FHWA Series, but I don't have the contempt for it that many here seem to.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on July 29, 2012, 10:34:45 PM
^ I saw a sign with your namesake on the Capital Beltway yesterday that looked like it was in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 12:03:29 PM
I saw a sign with your namesake on the Capital Beltway yesterday that looked like it was in Clearview.

Md. 214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Route_214) (and Md. 332 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Route_332), directly east of the D.C. border). 

Central Avenue starts in the District of Columbia and heads almost straight east across Prince George's County and Anne Arundel County, and ends at the Chesapeake Bay.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: doorknob60 on August 27, 2012, 09:40:20 PM
A lot of the street sign labels on traffic lights in Nampa are now in Clearview (not sure when they changed them, I just moved here for school, but Google's images have old non-Clearview signs). Unfortunately I don't yet have pictures, but I could get some soon. I think they look pretty good though, better than the old ones even :)

EDIT: Got a pic, it was from out the window of a moving school bus, but good enough haha.
(http://i.imgur.com/QmJN2.jpg)

I've also seen some in other places in the area, such as Eagle, ID. I don't think there's any on the interstates though, I think they are all put up by local governments so far, none by ITD (as far as I've seen)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on December 02, 2012, 12:23:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2012, 01:15:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: brownpelican on December 02, 2012, 05:10:16 PM
LaDOTD is doing a sign replacement project on I-10 in New Orleans proper over this weekend. My suspicion? Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 02, 2012, 11:05:18 PM
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.

No, it's just a particularly well-done application of Clearview. Properly spaced and not too large. I am still not comfortable with the different Clearview widths but I want to say that's Series 5W, which is probably the least offensive of the Clearview variants.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: brownpelican on December 04, 2012, 11:55:06 PM
Confirmed: the new signs put up on I-10 in New Orleans proper are in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JMoses24 on December 17, 2012, 03:23:56 AM
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.

That said, I otherwise do not endorse the Comic Sans font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on December 17, 2012, 07:48:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 09:52:16 AM
I'm a little surprised at how much people on here loathe Clearview and swoon over the FHWA fonts.  From the studies people have cited, neither one stands head-and-shoulders above the other in terms of legibility–even when improperly used (wrong contrast, caps, numerals...).  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.  One font may do marginally better than the other in one situation, and the other better in another situation, but they're both pretty much on par with each other from a practical standpoint, so I have no problem with either one.

/me steps down off the soap box.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 17, 2012, 10:24:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 10:31:07 AM
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.

Perfectly valid.  So why the knee-jerk reaction to brand-new signs (or ones that would have been replaced anyway) featuring Clearview legend, even when improperly used?  Maybe I just don't know who is an engineer and who is not, and all the knee-jerk reactions are not from engineers.  At any rate, my feathers get much more ruffled when the actual information on the sign is vague or misleading than I do by what font is used.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 17, 2012, 10:52:55 AM
I have multiple reasons for not liking Clearview, beyond the aesthetic:

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 17, 2012, 11:59:29 AM
  • 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?

Actually, the studies try to compare Clearview on an equal basis with FHWA:  same capital letter height and so on.  "Clearview sample so much bigger than FHWA" tends to refer to comparisons between FHWA Series E Modified and Clearview 5-W rather than Clearview 5-W-R.  The rule of thumb is that Clearview 5-W-R fits into the same footprint as Series E Modified, while the same message in 5-W is 11% wider.  The stylized comparison is that the additional 11% width buys reading distance 21% greater, while the contribution of 5-W to an increase in overall sign panel size is diluted somewhat by spacing requirements.

A more serious problem with the earlier Clearview studies is that they are based on draft versions of Clearview, so it is unclear whether the results reported in the studies are valid for the versions of Clearview that are commercially available.  The FHWA Clearview FAQ contains information on the comparative performance of Clearview and the FHWA series which I have not seen reported elsewhere in the research literature, so I think there is a significant amount of research and testing that has not been published.

Quote
  • 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.

AIUI, copyright over Clearview had to be waived in order for FHWA to approve it for use on traffic signs, so the real problem with Clearview from this perspective is not that the font has to be bought, but rather that it can be bought from only one source.

Quote
  • 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.

This is use of a different font in a structured way, so it isn't "willy-nilly"--it is more like using a different typeface for section headings in an academic book.  In fact, it is using only one font family (like Computer Modern) for all style elements in a book that is considered a design fault in some quarters.

A more fundamental argument, from a design perspective, is that Clearview is not fail-safe.  It is much easier to make basic errors in alignment and spacing with Clearview because there is much more variation in ratio of letter height to capital letter height with Clearview than there is with any of the FHWA series.  My personal view--and it is just that, not as an engineer (albeit with some scientific training)--is that an agency should not use Clearview unless it has the quality controls in place to ensure that it is used correctly on signs.[/list][/list][/list]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 01:34:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 17, 2012, 01:47:41 PM
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.

I think that's just how the internet works.

THIS OBJECT, PROGRAM, AND/OR SUGGESTION IS 0.36% MORE INFERIOR TO WHAT I'M USED TO!  HOW COULD YOU!!  CATS WITH CAPTIONS!!!238!!!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 17, 2012, 03:10:34 PM
In addition to Jake's observation about Internet discussion tending to magnify small contrasts, roadgeeks are to the ordinary driving population as bibliophiles are to ordinary consumers of print media.  Clearview is a large change in visual appearance for a legibility gain that is, at the margin, quite small for many age groups.  The population of this forum is also strongly skewed toward the young compared to the population at large, and young eyes benefit from Clearview to a much lesser degree than older eyes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on December 17, 2012, 04:34:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 17, 2012, 08:24:46 PM
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.

All of this is true, but I don't think it adds up to a full picture of the legal position with regard to intellectual property in Clearview.  My understanding is that since the designers are not asserting copyright in the glyphs (which in any case does not exist in the US), it would be legally possible for a third party to create a full set of Clearview fonts by drawing them from the specs.  However, published specs do not exist for Clearview, unlike for the FHWA alphabet series.  So Clearview effectively has trade secret protection, which is obtained simply by refraining from publishing technical specs, not through an operation of law such as copyright or the granting of a patent.  I believe this is what allows Terminal Design to retain a monopoly on Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 18, 2012, 12:22:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on January 01, 2013, 04:09:22 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 01, 2013, 11:10:42 PM
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.

It may be worth pointing out that the approved use of Clearview -- positive contrast -- is (perhaps coincidentally) typically not the type of sign telling you not to do X action.  I don't have a problem interpreting the above sign as "happily inviting" motorists to Hopewell, Seven Pines, or Mechanicsville.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on January 02, 2013, 02:19:04 AM
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)

Not to get too far off-topic, but I am really surprised to see that much sign area on just one post (what appears to be 2" square tube). :wow:  That assembly must see some nice 'helicoptering' in higher winds.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 02, 2013, 09:23:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 02, 2013, 11:24:41 AM
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.

VDOT is slowly pulling up its socks with regard to Clearview.  The first round of Clearview D-series small-guide-sign replacements called for mileage signs in all-uppercase Clearview (ugh) as drop-in replacements for existing mileage signs which used all-uppercase Series C or D.  Later replacement contracts now use mixed-case.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tdindy88 on January 02, 2013, 12:27:56 PM
I recall mileage signs like that on US 31 in Northern Michigan, from about Scottsville to Traverse City, last year. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that all white-on-green signs on that stretch were both in mixed-case and Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 02, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
Yup--that's the current Michigan DOT standard for D-series signs that use Clearview.  I have been following Michigan DOT construction plans since 2006 and I don't think I have ever seen a plans set (or sign sketches in a proposal book) that uses all-uppercase Clearview in this context.

Michigan DOT has an unusual letter sizing policy:  7" caps instead of 6" (MUTCD requirement) or 8" (TxDOT standard--TxDOT also uses mixed-case Clearview on D-series signs).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on January 02, 2013, 09:52:26 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on January 02, 2013, 10:22:27 PM
Hey, at least those don't have numbers. Clearview numbers should never ever be used on anything under any circumstances. Ever.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 03, 2013, 01:29:29 AM
Oklahoma DOT is also transitioning to mixed-case guide signs, although which font is being used on them is kind of hit-or-miss. Out in Beckham County, SH-152 has some mixed case Series D signs, but mixed-case Clearview has popped up on SH-19 in Garvin County. (The latter sign also included a shield graphic, instead of the "JCT SH-59" format that's normally used.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 03, 2013, 11:29:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on January 03, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
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.

Part of the reason, I think, is because there was never really a documented problem with the FHWA numbers to begin with (nor all uppercase letters), therefore, changing them is a waste of time in a scientific sense. The reason for the Clearview font were due in part to problems with halation/confusion with the lowercase letters a,e, and o.

From a typographical sense, it looks awkward/less eye-pleasing to have two different fonts in the same line. It's also much easier(/lazier?) for the person laying out the sign to keep the same font all the way through.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 03, 2013, 12:40:45 PM
there was never really a documented problem with the FHWA numbers to begin with (nor all uppercase letters),

I have trouble with FHWA Series EM "6" and "4".

once got a ticket that way!

(in my defense, the sign was knocked down and the setting sun was bouncing off of it, so I should be glad that I recognized that it was a sign in the first place... but I didn't feel like paying $400 for airfare to beat a $135 ticket)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on January 16, 2013, 11:51:16 PM
Went to Bobby Layman Chevrolet today. Noticed wayfinding signage all around (more necessary than usual due to showroom rebuild).  Reflective, blue on white with inset border, standard arrows, and all-caps legend in Clearview, differing widths as necessary.  I think the dealership probably commissioned Franklin County Engineer's Office for the signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2013, 02:13:17 AM
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.

I know there are varying opinions out there regarding Clearview, but this is (IMO) a nice update to a very traditional Virginia sign, and I think it looks better than the "original" all caps version.  I have never seen one like this with my own eyes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2013, 02:39:48 PM
There's something I've noticed about Clearview mileage signs (BGS-type on the interstates) that looked a little odd to me, and I was never able to put my finger on what it was. This sign has clarified it for me.

Always before, on regular FHWA typeface signs, numbers for the mileage were the height of the capital letters.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2013, 03:00:23 PM
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.

you have a valid observation, but I do not believe it is completely correct.  I think the "oddness" is a result of two things:

1) numbers being slightly shorter than capital letters (or maybe the same height?  tough to tell in the small photo)

and more importantly:

2) extra-tall ascenders on lowercase letters like "h", "l", etc resulting in those glyphs being significantly taller than capital letters.

I definitely can tell that the "i" in "Pines" sticks out well above the "P", but that is about the only glyph pair on which I can make accurate sizing determinations, as - again - it's a pretty low-resolution photo.

can anyone corroborate these observations?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on January 17, 2013, 03:36:18 PM
I can go get a better photo of it if you want. It's only about 10 miles away from me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 17, 2013, 05:29:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 17, 2013, 06:08:47 PM
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.

I basically agree with this; I think the numbers are at capital letter height, as is usual on mileage signs.  (I have, however, collected designs for mileage signs in which the numbers were noticeably smaller than the capital letters, though only for signs using Series E Modified.)

Ignoring the very slight height variation that is permitted for letters that have curves in them, there are basically four heights above baseline that apply to Clearview.  In ascending order, these are as follows:

x-height (basically, the height of a lowercase letter without ascenders)

*  Capital letter height (applies not just to capital letters but also to digits and certain lowercase letters with ascenders, such as t)

*  Height of certain lowercase letters with ascenders (f, h, l, and others)

*  Height of lowercase i

I have bidding plans for most if not all of the signing work VDOT has done by contract in the last few years, and I can assure you that VDOT has been very consistent about using the same height for capital letters and digits on mileage signs.  I am not sure I have the sign panel detail sheet for this particular sign, however (not all VDOT signing is done by contract--some of it is done by state forces and there have been a few on-call signing contracts in the mix).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2013, 06:42:37 PM
*  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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 17, 2013, 11:06:58 PM
*  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?

The ascenders for this height group stick up about 6.6% of capital letter height above the tops of the capital letters.  I don't know if this is "unusual," but it is a characteristic completely absent from the FHWA alphabet series, where ascenders never stick up above the tops of the capital letters.  Lowercase i protrudes about 10% of capital letter height above the tops of the capital letters; in the FHWA series the dot of i never protrudes above the capital letters.

This behavior of Clearview ascenders is why I can't use my standard positioning scripts on Clearview legend blocks without using adjuster scripts to compensate for ascenders in any lines of legend that have them.  I could do without the adjusters, but considering that omitting them adds an error to line spacing equal to 1/10 or 1/7 the correct line spacing, the results look subtly but noticeably wrong.

(FHWA says that the standard line spacing of 75% capital letter height for Series E Modified legend is wrong for Clearview, and that 84% capital letter height should be used instead, that being apparently the ratio of Clearview x-height to capital letter height.  I am sorry, but on this point I think FHWA is wrong, so I stick with 75%.  Most Clearview-using state DOTs agree with me.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 18, 2013, 01:28:45 PM
Comparison of real sign and mockup using de facto Virginia DOT standards for conventional-road mileage signs (Clearview 3-W):

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XUq9Zp9G-6c/UM8__CT0gcI/AAAAAAAAE28/JBxabd-in50/s640/IMG_0607.JPG)

(http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/f/f8/Virginia-dot-conventional-road-mileage-sign.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on January 18, 2013, 10:36:33 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 08, 2013, 08:28:58 PM
Yates County, NY appears to have adopted  clearview.  I noticed clearview county and town line signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 08, 2013, 11:14:25 PM
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)

VDOT seems to have gotten its act together. This looks pretty decent too.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on July 09, 2013, 05:09:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 09, 2013, 09:32:31 PM
Good question; I assumed county, since I had only seen them there (NY 14 south entering from Ontario County, and NY 54 entering Penn Yan).  Not that I'd be surprised if NYSDOT adopted clearview, given that they often adopt whatever signing thing the Thruway does after a few years (such as the rounded exit tabs).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on July 15, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
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)

They are NYSDOT installs. NYSDOT has not switched to Clearview, however, not because NYSDOT has switched to Clearview but because one of the contractors thought they had to and just started producing everything in Clearview.  I believe the misunderstanding has since been corrected.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 11, 2013, 12:30:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: yakra on August 12, 2013, 06:07:26 PM
Oh dear Lord...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on August 12, 2013, 08:38:47 PM
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.

Was it this?

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8225/8598846314_7f4b747eab_z.jpg)

Please tell me it was this, because it isn't Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 12, 2013, 08:46:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on August 12, 2013, 08:52:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 13, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
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?

Is Maine still using state-named I-shields on their BGS'?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 30, 2013, 03:15:34 AM
I've talked a fair amount about Dimvi...err...Clearview in this thread over the last few years in regards to what I've seen in Wyoming.  I've not changed my opinion, I think Clearview letters work as intended, but it looks like ass. The numbers are another story...   

Here, I've gathered a handful of recent before & after images:

I've posted a few examples of WY DOT putting up some Highway Gothic signs even after Clearview was in place.   One of which was a exit/gore sign at Exit 54... well here's three versions - a "patched" HG sign from 2008, HG from 2011 and now, Clearview in 2013.   I think Clearview letters work OK, but the numbers are really hideous - and I really wish WYDOT would not use the numbers.  Gack!

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit54Gore-BeforeAndAfter.jpg)

Speaking of that exit, in 2010, they put up a new sign, the main sign was in Clearview but the Exit Tab was in Series D! 
Sadly, I noticed just recently that the Series D tab had been changed to Clearview (didn't have my camera ready for a shot of the new sign though)

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ChugwaterCV-EXIT54SeriesD.jpg)

EDIT:  I got a shot of it today.  I hadn't noticed that that both signs were replaced, so I'm guessing something wiped that assembly out and required both to be replaced. 

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit54ChugwaterClearview2.jpg)


Next up, a Wheatland exit BGS.  The Clearview one is definitely more legible. 

(... and I have no idea why they decided to drop the Green Loop shield)

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit78Wheatland2-Before.jpg)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit78Wheatland2-After.jpg)

Another similar comparison from a few miles south, again, I think the number 39 is easier to read in HG-E than CV.  Otherwise the CV sign works better in a fugly sort of way. 

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit39LlittleBear-Before.jpg)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit39LlittleBear-After.jpg)


And that brings to one of the laments I have about WY DOT's changing out signs.  In the early 2000s, they were experimenting with a couple of different typefaces.  One was a variant of Highway Gothic D/E, you might say.  The other was a really bold typeface, you might call it Series F Modified (or Bold)  And there are/were a number of these signs between Douglas (where I live) and Cheyenne.  These signs are now disappearing, which I think is a shame, for one they were unique, and for two, the replacements are Clearview. 

First example isn't much, as there are only 4 letters.  The Lusk exit.  This was the funky D/E typeface and the Clearview replacement:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit126-Lusk-Before.jpg)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/Exit126-Lusk-After.jpg)


Now, I really happened to like that F-bold typeface.  Here's a recent replacement:

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ElRancho1Mile-Before.jpg)
(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/ElRancho1Mile-After.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 30, 2013, 05:01:44 AM
Both of those are distortions of the real FHWA Series fonts, not a new typeface. I doubt it was even intentional on WYDOT's part, just someone who designs signs badly. It's actually kind of better for them to be replaced.

The provisional approval for Clearview still mandates use of FHWA Series digits, so WYDOT actually was following correct practice but isn't now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 30, 2013, 06:44:28 AM
Well, I can see your point... but I have no problems with that "bold-F" style at all.  I'll be sad when it's all gone...   I did say "variant" and not that it was some kind of new typeface.  And I will NEVER like Clearview numerals.   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2013, 11:34:57 AM
also note the different shield shape for 18/20.  '57 spec (used for California-style cutout) replaced with '70 spec bloaters.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on September 09, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2013, 02:46:41 PM
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.

@VTK: 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on September 09, 2013, 03:00:42 PM
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.

I knew that.  But I'm pretty sure this sign isn't supposed to be in Clearview.  And I'm not sure why the old one was replaced, though I suppose it might have been severely damaged by a wayward vehicle…

And I'm not sure how accurate "short term" is.  I don't think the weaving is scheduled to be corrected in the next couple of years, and beyond that is totally questionable considering the Kasich administration keeps reshuffling road money at least twice a year.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2013, 03:16:34 PM
Is there a restriction on where Clearview can be use in Ohio or elsewhere? I wasn't aware of that. ODOT has been using Clearview on all new signage - and doing a good job at it (in comparison to other states, like Pennsylvania).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on September 09, 2013, 03:22:28 PM
As far as I was aware, the interim approval of Clearview nationally was for the xW fonts in positive contrast only (not xB fonts in negative contrast).  Am I wrong about that?  There's a buttload of old posts to read in this thread…
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on September 09, 2013, 05:07:22 PM
You're correct. From the interim approval memo (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm) itself (emphasis mine):

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 09, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 12, 2013, 05:43:50 AM
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

Those are fine. It is 'Lusk' (and the 'EAST' on that sign) and 'El Rancho Road' that were badly done.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 18, 2013, 11:43:35 AM
You're correct. From the interim approval memo (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm) itself (emphasis mine):

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on September 20, 2013, 03:44:04 PM
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)

Funny, I drove past there the other day and said out loud "Oh, look! Improper use of Clearview!" (Of course, I think use of Clearview period is improper, but that's all I'm going to say about that.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2013, 08:00:39 PM
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 23, 2013, 08:04:52 PM
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.

as much as I love old button copy and dislike Clearview... I'd be hard-pressed to say it isn't an improvement.  some of the 1980s button copy on 91 was pathologically ratty - in inclement weather, it was literally impossible to read: no contrast whatsoever.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on September 26, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
I feel the same way. ODOT's been replacing a lot of signage in my area lately, and as much as I'm sad to see the button copy go, as someone who does a lot of nighttime driving, I definitely appreciate the readability improvement from the new retroreflective signs. Makes me feel somewhat conflicted...
Title: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Billy F 1988 on October 13, 2013, 04:42:29 PM
It seems that people seem to have a petty problem with Clearview and where it is going. I want to clear the air here and tell you that I personally do not any major issues with the application of Clearview in highway settings. However, one of the nuances that has held back its application is the fact the FHWA didn't find any feasibility in Clearview due to a variety of factors such as readability, visibility from 1,500 feet, and the structure of every glyph just to name a few. Another nuance is the potential for design issues in sequential one-mile interval signs. The next nuance is the numbers 0-9. They're not as pretty as the Highway Gothic digits that have been with us since 1948. Another is its application in exit tabs. Kearning could be a factor in how it is designed. Road markers like Interstates, US Highways, state routes and secondary roads also play a factor in Clearview. It just doesn't look as good theoretically speaking. I can't see the use of Clearview on an Interstate shield. It's just ugly. Address labels on mailboxes? Mmmm, yeah. Maybe. Street blades? Nah. Not really. Maybe text, but not numbers on blades. Besides these nuances that are holding back Clearview from being applied to highway settings, 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. So, the gist of my take on Clearview in closing is simply that it's going to take time. Let the Clearview haters be Clearview haters. That is all.
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Takumi on October 13, 2013, 06:32:24 PM
(http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/42113275.jpg)
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 06:37:23 PM
I can't see the use of Clearview on an Interstate shield. It's just ugly.

(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Michigan_Day_2/Images/65.jpg)
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Thing 342 on October 13, 2013, 06:52:29 PM
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.


Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: mukade on October 13, 2013, 08:25:41 PM
...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.
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: mukade on October 13, 2013, 08:31:08 PM
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')

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
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Big John on October 13, 2013, 09:00:26 PM
...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.
He may have meany Illinois or Kentucky.
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: corco on October 13, 2013, 09:33:27 PM
Quote
3) It seemed to be a solution in search of a problem

That's my problem with it- progress is inevitable, and people who don't accept that are going to live miserable lives, but there's no reason to change things just for the sake of change, and that's what Clearview wreaks of.
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: getemngo on October 13, 2013, 09:54:38 PM
Hey, here's an idea! How about we just let the most legible font for each application be used for that application, regardless of how "ugly" it is?

2) Immense waste by some states to replace a large number of perfectly good signs

But yeah, let's put a stop to this. Looking at you, Michigan.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on October 13, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
...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.

There is some Clearview on the Indiana Toll Road, near Chicago.  INDOT doesn't use it in general though.

I have wondered; does the Clearview FAQ (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm) carry any weight; are the things it says in policy somewhere?  It would be nice if at least some of the things that recent PA signage has (like all-caps and numerals in FHWA lettering with only destinations in Clearview) could be adopted everywhere....Ohio's Clearview signs all have everything in Clearview but the shield numerals--including sometimes negative contrast words and sometimes not.

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. 
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Billy F 1988 on October 14, 2013, 12:59:07 AM
...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.

Wait, what? I swore I thought they used it. I probably had mistaken Indiana for Illinois then.

And as for this:
(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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on October 14, 2013, 03:09:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 09:55:56 AM
I've seen some street signs in Indiana in Clearview, but none on state highways.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on October 14, 2013, 10:00:40 AM
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.

My comment in the second sentence wasn't really tied to the first, but I didn't want to start a whole new paragraph--I just wish Ohio would knock it off with the Clearview totally--not just for the sake of replacing signs that don't need it.  :D

You are totally correct about the main problem in Ohio--I know of signs that have gone through 2 or 3 replacements while ones in much worse shape still stand.  (315 north of Columbus is a major offender--I love the old signs for their button copy and resilience, but they are in TERRIBLE shape and worthless at night.  Meanwhile the 2001-ish button copy installed on I-70 west of downtown was replaced only a couple years later with reflective (not Clearview at least) signs while the button copy there could have at least served 15 years probably.  (The first two photos on this page (http://www.roadfan.com/670signs.html) show some of the ones I'm talking about--the 670 ones never even had the orange panel removed to reveal "Airport" before they were replaced!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TCN7JM on October 14, 2013, 10:13:55 AM
It seems Clearview is coming to the Dakotas in small increments. Most, if not all of the perfectly good BGSs on southbound Interstate 29 in North Dakota were replaced with Clearview ones within the past couple months. Luckily, I haven't seen much of it in South Dakota. Even though I easily prefer Highway Gothic, I don't honestly mind Clearview. My problem with it is that they took the time to replace signs that had no business being replaced.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TEG24601 on October 14, 2013, 12:36:46 PM
Having spent a lot of time driving, I happen to like Clearview, for one simple reason... I can read the sign at 70+ MPH, without struggling and can read it at greater distances.  While I know usually where I'm going (been reading maps since I was 2) I have always struggled to read Highway Gothic road signs at any speed over 55.  I do believe that both can serve a useful purpose, I just don't understand the continual bashing of something that may actually make life easier for a majority of drivers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 01:19:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on October 14, 2013, 01:38:25 PM
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.

No, you're not alone. I find Clearview to be harder to read at night, as I can't seem to read the sign from as far away. The stroke is seems a bit too thin. During the day, it's okay, but not enough to be worth the effort of doing a wholesale switch of fonts IMO.
Title: Re: Just my take on Clearview
Post by: Molandfreak on October 14, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
And as for this:
(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.
Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on October 14, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
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.

No, you are not alone.  I find Clearview and Highway Gothic to be pretty much equal when the sign reflectivity is the same.  IMHO, we should go from using E(M) to just plain E.  E(M) was for the buttons on button copy.  Plain old E would be just as legible as Clearview when all other conditions are the same (font height, reflectivity, etc).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on October 14, 2013, 02:17:36 PM
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)

What the Series F?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Molandfreak on October 14, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)

What the Series F?
Yes. It's ten times worse than clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on October 14, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
Yes. It's ten times worse than clearview.

Not really.  The problem would be the same if the numerals were Clearview or Series F.  They take up too much fricking space in the shield and look crowded.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 14, 2013, 03:35:37 PM
Yeah, the problem with that Clearview shield posted isn't the Clearview, its that the numbers are just way too big!  Clearview looks just fine when properly proportioned (which is rarely).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 15, 2013, 09:04:44 PM
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.
Finally got a picture of one:
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/ny14a/100_8554.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ctrabs74 on June 29, 2014, 05:24:07 PM
And as for this:
(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.
Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)

That's nothing compared to the old signs along New Hampshire's US 3/Everett Turnpike.  The green assurance signs had an absolutely hideous font for the "3" in the U.S. shield.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Billy F 1988 on June 29, 2014, 07:56:34 PM
Uh, try harder, because the ugly "3" isn't the only thing that looks like shit. Check out the craptastic I-99 shield with the wrong FHWA type. And the "15" on the Blue Knob State Park sign is craptastic as well. The ugly "3" is simply the least of the other two shitpiece signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on June 30, 2014, 02:21:20 AM
Yeah, I wouldn't have even seen that...  I'd have been too busy gagging on the I-99 and Blue Knob 15 signs.  ("I'll show YOU a 'blue knob'!!)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: formulanone on July 08, 2014, 12:10:14 PM
Clearview numerals aren't half as bad as it gets...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7093/27087728603_2d9ffa18cc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HgDFZv)

If there's one thing I know how to do well, it's take photos of terrible signs.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/562/19335962033_e17c079e26_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vsDRRK)

...and now, back to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on July 08, 2014, 03:32:14 PM
...which for some reason is no longer being discussed in this thread.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: on_wisconsin on July 08, 2014, 05:24:29 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on July 09, 2014, 04:09:03 PM
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.)

I don't like Clearview, but I don't rip on people for liking it, because I really don't give two shits...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 19, 2014, 11:59:29 PM
I can't tell the difference between Clearview and other fonts very well, if at all. I see some minor differences, but they don't affect me much, unless it's like the interstate signs a few posts up. :thumbdown:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2014, 11:13:30 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Molandfreak on August 10, 2014, 07:12:51 PM
First thing I thought of when I saw it was "no shit, do people really not fucking know that?"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SSOWorld on August 10, 2014, 07:17:59 PM
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...)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 11, 2014, 01:48:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 11, 2014, 10:14:43 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2014, 12:37:09 PM
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)

Some of those might appropriately go in the "Humorous Signs" thread. I know I posted this one in that thread, though it would surely qualify for a "bleeding obvious" thread as well. Picture taken in Granby, Colorado, on the day before Labor Day in 2007, and I only found it because I'd made a wrong turn somewhere (had I gone the way I'd intended, we'd never have come anywhere near Granby):

(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/6e2ccb70.jpg)



BTW, to try to get back on topic, the Clearview "SMUGGLING" sign I posted above is so grainy because it's an iPhone picture of the front page of yesterday's newspaper. I didn't feel like trying to find the sign online using an iPhone or iPad, so it was easier just to take a picture and upload it using the Photobucket app.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on August 17, 2014, 08:52:21 AM
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)

Hnnnhaah!  Yeah, except I have two real world examples of just that sort of thing!

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/HighWaterWhenFlooded.jpg)

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/WaterMayExistOnRoad.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on August 17, 2014, 12:18:59 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 17, 2014, 01:29:11 PM
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.

The legend also needs to be black on white because it isn't really a guide-sign message.  I don't object so much to the larger size because on this sign it functions as a keyword rather than as a header, but the layout looks visually unbalanced since the third line is so much shorter than the others.  If the words were regrouped vertically (one word per line except "IS A,"), it might be possible to accommodate the message on a standard-sized blank such as that used for speed limits.
Title: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: logan230 on October 10, 2014, 06:16:39 PM
 :hmmm: Just curious.

When I first saw Clearview I wanted to throw up. But over a long period of time I've grown to tolerate it, especially if your whole area's signs were replaced, even though I still stick with Highway Gothic (or FHWA, whatever you wanna call it).
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: Zeffy on October 10, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
Clearview is fine on mixed-case positive contrast backgrounds. The problem is it's almost never used like that, so then you have all caps (which looks ugly), Clearview on negative contrast (hard to read), and the worst offender of them all: Clearview numerals. Yiiiiiiiiick! If the numerals weren't so poo I would maybe like Clearview more, but those things are HIDEOUS to look at.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: jakeroot on October 10, 2014, 07:04:09 PM
Logan230, you're asking for trouble starting a new thread regarding the Clearview v Highway Gothic war. But, I won't stop you, because it can be very enjoyable to read.

That said, I like Clearview because it looks modern, but dislike it for its numerals (like Zeffy above). They're okay, but not my favorite.

I don't mind Highway Gothic, but it's seriously out of date and in need of updating. It worked better when sign design was done more by hand, but in the digital era, it's less than desirable.

So, in the end, I'm impartial. If a state/province wants to use Clearview, be my guest. If a state/province prefers the old FHWA fonts, that's also fine. Both are very functional and easy to read, so I give both a thumbs up.

PS...I don't believe this is road-related illustrations material we are discussing. Perhaps General Highway Talk is best.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: hbelkins on October 10, 2014, 11:59:25 PM
all caps (which looks ugly), Clearview on negative contrast (hard to read)

Neither of those bother me, and I don't find negative contrast Clearview hard to read at all.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: adventurernumber1 on October 11, 2014, 12:21:00 AM
Tbh I have to agree with hbelkins. I don't hate Clearview, and I don't hate Highway Gothic. I'm fine with both.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: freebrickproductions on October 11, 2014, 12:25:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: riiga on October 11, 2014, 09:28:05 AM
I'm fine with both, but prefer Highway Gothic.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: KG909 on October 11, 2014, 10:54:34 AM
I completely hate clearview. I hope whoever made it dies a slow and painful death.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: Zeffy on October 11, 2014, 10:57:20 AM
and I don't find negative contrast Clearview hard to read at all.

Manville has black-on-white street blades with mixed case Clearview 1/2-B on them. I physically can not read them during the day going 35+. At night, it's virtually impossible as well. I can clearly remember reading the FHWA versions when they still had them.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 11, 2014, 11:49:19 AM
Its hard to give your opinion on Clearview when your local DOTs screw it up and make it look like total shit. (I'm talking to you IDOT and ISTHA).

That said, if Clearview is used properly I do not think it looks that bad. It really is over-used in Illinois and is extremely frustrating.

However, on a side note, some of ISTHA's more recent signage has been improving excluding their occasional skip of an Exit tab or funky pull-through arrows.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: Billy F 1988 on October 11, 2014, 03:00:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: KG909 on October 11, 2014, 03:06:48 PM
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.
Okay I was joking with the second part but the first sentence is 100% true.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: SignGeek101 on October 11, 2014, 11:37:37 PM
I don't mind either. No font is perfect (hence why Clearview was created in the first place)! I design signs in both fonts. What really gets me is when Clearview is used in negative-contrast applications (black on white, yellow) and Clearview in the route shield. I've said this on another thread that my city uses negative-contrast Clearview on its speed limit signs and route shields. It bugs me every time.

Near Toronto Pearson Int'l (Airport signage most likely, but still). One of the few Ontario Clearview signs.

(http://i.imgur.com/LTcHwRG.jpg)

 :ded: :banghead:

Other than that, Clearview is a great font that has potential if some of its issues were fixed. But since the FHWA is cancelling its interim approval of Clearview, I guess we'll never see improvements.

It doesn't matter who does the signage in whatever font, if it's done right (ie. to the current standards set out in the MUTCD) it looks decent IMO.

MUTCD on Clearview:http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/ (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/)

GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/bYI8e
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: spmkam on October 12, 2014, 12:43:15 AM
Curious why French is above the English, it seems odd for the English speaking part of Canada.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: VCB02FromRoblox on October 12, 2014, 12:47:50 AM
The only thing I don't like about Clearview is the numerals. That being said, I'm okay with both typefaces.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: CtrlAltDel on October 12, 2014, 01:02:51 AM
Curious why French is above the English, it seems odd for the English speaking part of Canada.

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. This sort of combining is common in multilingual areas. For example in Brussels, the street signs mix Flemish and French, leading to things like “rue du Lombard Straat,”  and so on.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 22, 2014, 01:09:30 AM
Reviving this thread because of something that just (incorrectly?) occurred to me:

The FHWA has no problem allowing some states to have basically unreadable-from-a-distance shields (Louisiana), but they feel the need to ban Clearview on route shields because legibility is apparently a hair too poor ... if they are so concerned about legibility, why do they allow states with completely insane shields with tiny numbers? Seniority?

If someone is going to respond with "Louisiana's shields are very visible", are you propounding that the shields, with Clearview numerals applied, have suddenly become out-of-focus hieroglyphics? Personally, I find that to be absolutely asinine (the numbers are still plenty readable), so what's the issue? If a state wants to use completely custom (unproven) colors, why can't they use (mostly proven) Clearview?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 23, 2014, 04:50:38 PM
There is no cut and dried answer here:

1) Clearview is being held to a higher standard because it was allowed under an interim approval and not added to the MUTCD. An interim approval letter looks like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/Qfc8xvj.png)
which refers to the Interim Approval for Use of Clearview Font for Positive Contrast Legends on Guide Signs (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-ia_clearview_font.htm). Note that neither of these say anything about how Clearview is to be used other than that Clearview is to be used only in positive contract situations and that cardinal directions must use the small-caps treatment. The Clearview circular, officially titled Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm), appears to be more of an advisory document and may not have any binding power. That being said, states get away with directly contradicting the interim approval by installing negative-contrast signage (which Oklahoma does all the time) and by not doing the small-caps thing (which Texas does all the time).

2) As far as I know the strongest thing that has been done against states for failure to comply with the interim approval is to shame Maryland by putting photos of its signs in the Clearview circular and captioning them NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is because the FHWA doesn't have any real power to tell a state DOT what to do. They can refuse to fund the installation of traffic control devices which do not comply with the MUTCD–this is what got Florida on the colored US shields–but this appears to be done sparingly. Oklahoma, for example, is full of signs which don't meet MUTCD standards for interline spacing and margin width, but FHWA has, to my knowledge, never actually raised any objections. It's possible that FHWA only wishes to act when a large quantity of standard signs (i.e. not custom signs like freeway guide signs) is involved, which are blatantly not compliant to the MUTCD. Quibbling over things like margin width may be seen as so 'inside baseball' that if a flap over them occurred, and coverage went mainstream, the result would accomplish little but to embarrass FHWA in the court of public opinion. With Clearview in particular, the situation is complicated by the fact that an Interim Approval is involved, not the true MUTCD, so there could be a concern that if funds were withheld due to a non-compliant sign and the state involved fought it in court, that the FHWA might lose because the document involved is not as "bulletproof" as the MUTCD.

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.

4) The MUTCD does establish a minimum digit size for route markers. (If I remember correctly, it is 12" on a 24"×24" shield, or half the height of the shield.) The LA highway shield appears to not meet this criteria. It's possible that LaDOTD successfully convinced the Louisiana FHWA office that a smaller standard digit size was necessary to post some of their highway designations, which can theoretically contain up to five digits with hyphen, like "1363-5". Either that, or the Louisiana FHWA office simply doesn't care enough to raise a stink about it (see above with regards to inside baseball, although there's clearly a public interest in ensuring text is large enough to be legible).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 23, 2014, 07:38:45 PM
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.

Wanted to address the above paragraph from two separate standpoints.

Concerning FHWA staffing, a gentleman by the name of Jose Sepulveda has been Kentucky's FHWA director for at least 10 years. He's retiring this year, from what I understand. And if you ever listened to him speak, that experience (coupled with the mere reading of his name) would tell you that he's not a Kentucky native. :-P However, he has been here for a long time and I don't know of any wholesale shuffling of the Kentucky regional office staff. Jose is well-liked.

And concerning my stand on the MUTCD, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to have uniform traffic control devices. I think it's good that a "merging traffic" sign (W4-1 for those of you scoring at home) will look the same in Vermont as it will in New Mexico. I just don't think the feds need to get so specific as to dictate the use of certain fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: national highway 1 on October 24, 2014, 01:55:12 AM
These trailblazers are also shocking...   :ded:
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Int99entranceFromUS220Bus.jpg)
(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Int75nAASign-SeriesFtall.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 24, 2014, 03:41:00 AM
And that's why we don't put Series E on route markers!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 24, 2014, 03:50:51 AM
And that's why we don't put Series E on route markers!

It's not too bad if done properly, but it certainly doesn't get my vote:

(http://i.imgur.com/X5AxgQW.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 24, 2014, 03:54:23 AM
Yeah, it even manages to work well on the CO route marker, but that marker has a space set aside for the digits that Series E fills better than any other series.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on October 24, 2014, 09:40:47 AM
These trailblazers are also shocking...   :ded:

No shocked shields pertains to Series C font used for a 2-digit route.  :nod:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
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".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on October 26, 2014, 10:53:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on October 26, 2014, 10:56:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2014, 07:07:34 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on October 27, 2014, 12:44:46 AM
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)

Those signs do look like they're doing the job. Not sure what width that is (3B?) I'm not an expert on Clearview widths. Still not a fan though. Here's one from my area:

(http://i.imgur.com/pOnF3Wa.jpg)
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: mjb2002 on October 31, 2014, 09:21:15 PM
Highway Gothic, hands down. Just looks better on signs, on paper, in advertisements, on weblogs and sites, in memes, etc.
Title: Re: Highway Gothic vs Clearview?
Post by: sammi on October 31, 2014, 10:25:49 PM
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.

Downsview Park (which is within 10 minutes of here) is called "Parc Downsview Park", for the same reason as above. One time my history teacher said "Downsview Parc Downsview". :)

I also see this on signs outside government buildings. Near campus there's a "Édifice Whitney Block", and farther north there's a "5900, rue Yonge Street".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 01, 2014, 11:14:25 PM
A first for Quebec (at least from what I've seen). Look at the left shield. (NOT my pic)
(http://srquebec.net/photos/a25skm0-a20ekm90-s1.JPG)

  :-o :ded:

GMSV: http://goo.gl/maps/JDP9f
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Fugazi on November 01, 2014, 11:51:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on November 02, 2014, 07:22:13 AM
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.
IMO, this stems more from problems with the Autoroute shield than with font choice. They are far too busy.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 09, 2014, 10:08:27 PM
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)

Holy shit that is ugly. Kill it with fire, please... I used to use Clearview in my videos just because I thought it could work, but I stopped because its even too ugly for non-road purposes. No joke.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2014, 06:31:58 PM
I thought I'd just leave this here:

http://goo.gl/QzoAnx (page 17)

(http://i.imgur.com/J19fSAB.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 28, 2014, 07:25:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on November 29, 2014, 07:35:38 PM
The first bad installation I've seen in a while for Kentucky: https://goo.gl/maps/8RCG4
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on November 29, 2014, 09:08:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on November 29, 2014, 11:17:18 PM
Today I noticed shiny new Clearview BGS on KY 8 where it runs into I-75 in Covington.  I don't think they were there the last time I had passed through.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: misterjimmy on November 30, 2014, 09:38:06 AM
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.

That is the most disgusting number "10" I've ever seen on a road sign!! How did they get away with that one? Where's the picture of the outraged roadgeeks protesting on the opposite corner?!?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on December 01, 2014, 10:24:11 AM
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.

Agreed: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.msg2024199
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on December 02, 2014, 10:36:03 AM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I have seen a couple of these attraction signs in Clearview in Mississippi. I've seen it in different counties, so I doubt it is a local installation. This sign is on US 98 between Hattiesburg and McComb.

(http://i.imgur.com/vSQqtMa.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 14, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
Wanting to answer this because I left you hanging:

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?

The letters are Clearview 1W, the narrowest of the Clearview versions.

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?

As far as I can tell, they just haven't updated them. I have seen most of the signs in the manual in Clearview at some point or another.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mefailenglish on December 20, 2014, 12:18:28 PM
Noticed this at a service plaza on Florida's Turnpike.

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/IMG_4617_zpsfa931920.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: sammi on December 20, 2014, 01:50:11 PM
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg36/jcm9572/IMG_4617_zpsfa931920.jpg)

I actually like it off a road sign. :spin:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 13, 2015, 08:51:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 11:03:17 PM
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.

What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 11:06:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 13, 2015, 11:11:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 13, 2015, 11:20:39 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on January 13, 2015, 11:23:41 PM
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. But what could FHWA do to states that continued to use it incorrectly? Besides, a lot of contractors picked up the typefaces anyway - just look at New Jersey's new (UGLY) Clearview signs on I-195 and I-295 near Trenton, whereas NJDOT themselves do not use Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 13, 2015, 11:35:03 PM

What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?

Not sure, but I can definitely say I have seen some Clearview logo signs in the Hampton Roads area.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2015, 12:41:20 AM
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.

Even if the studies found Clearview to be less legible in some cases, it was also found to be more legible in other areas. What they should have done was completely use Clearview, or not adopt it at all. We both know that Clearview was found to be more legible (in some cases), and in other cases, less legible. 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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on January 14, 2015, 09:17:16 AM
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.
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.

Quote
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.

Interesting tid-bit on how to handle lettering for numbered streets:
Quote
**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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 14, 2015, 11:08:34 AM
What was their previous policy (besides their in-the-field informal practice)?

The memo Pink Jazz linked to is TE-337.1, a revised version of TE-337.0, which used to live at the same URL and so is no longer on the current Web because it has been overwritten on the server.  However, the Web Archive has it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100616080616/http://virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font.pdf

It is essentially a carbon copy of the original Interim Approval memorandum for Clearview, in much the same way the current version is a carbon copy of the Clearview FAQ.

As for current practice, VDOT has issued some contract signing plans that restrict Clearview to mixed-case legend since at least the autumn of 2013.  I have seen contract signing plans for Northern Virginia that use Clearview for everything, and others for Hampton Roads and the mountain districts that use it only for mixed-case text, but I haven't searched for a clear pattern with regard to contract date or district.  I suspect the current version of VDOT's Clearview memo is designed to harmonize practices that previously varied from designer to designer.

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.

The guidelines contained in the original IA are nowhere near as strict as what FHWA is trying to push as "best practice" in the Clearview FAQ.  In 2004 FHWA required just that Clearview be used in positive contrast on guide signs only, with its own spacing tables.  Now FHWA (as of October 2013, the apparent issue date for the Clearview FAQ) wants practitioners to use Clearview 5-W or 5-W-R only, and only for mixed-case legend on guide signs, with different rules for interline spacing (which nearly all Clearview-using agencies and I disagree with, BTW).

Quote
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.

I have been following the Clearview story in real time since before the IA was issued.  Texas' Clearview signing has actually been quite clean from the beginning.  Sure, there have been isolated examples of Clearview in negative contrast or in route marker digits, but these comprise a very small fraction of the contract signing TxDOT has done in the same period.  (To give an idea of scale, my current collection of pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets extracted from TxDOT construction plans sets has more than 15,000 sheets from 1998 to the present.)  The main issue with TxDOT's Clearview signing has actually been the size of fraction numerals, an issue that was noted early on but never systematically addressed by state DOTs and which FHWA is trying to cure by encouraging the use of Series E or E Modified for all numerals.

The real reprobates are agencies like Oklahoma DOT and PennDOT that routinely do things that were never allowed by the original IA, such as negative-contrast Clearview.  The former has even inserted negative-contrast Clearview into plans for federal-aid projects, which are nominally subject to FHWA review.  PennDOT's contract signing plans are fairly clean (though not up to TxDOT standards), but the negative-contrast stuff that attracts ire from folk on here tends to be made in its district sign shops and installed by state forces, so it bypasses the project development process for contract work.

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.

The original IA cited the early Clearview research, but it never actually required that the use of Clearview be restricted only to the specific cases where a clear benefit over the FHWA series had been demonstrated.  It also laid out typeface equivalencies (Clearview 1-W as a substitute for Series B, etc.) for Clearview faces whose advantages over the equivalent FHWA series had never been demonstrated in published research.

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.

I don't.  I remember the original correspondence between PennDOT, TxDOT, and FHWA back in the early noughties, when both agencies were pushing hard for Clearview to be approved and FHWA HOTO was dragging its feet.  The ATSSA database included at least two letters from Art Breneman (now long retired, but at the time PennDOT's chief signing engineer) asking for Clearview approval.  Meanwhile, TxDOT had been specifying "Expressway Clearview" (by plan sheet note only; the actual sign designs showed Series E Modified) since the late summer of 2002, and had also advertised its first contract explicitly showing Clearview in pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets (an El Paso district job in June 2003) more than a full year before the FHWA IA was released.  There were plenty of experimental installations in both Texas and Pennsylvania.

At the time it was pretty easy to predict most of the design disasters that would happen if Clearview were entrusted to inexperienced or careless practitioners (negative contrast, route marker digits, signing half in one system and half in the other, etc.), though some others (such as the fraction problem) became evident only later.  But FHWA had to get out in front of this, from their perspective, unwanted development, because their institutional inclination has always been to use federal-aid funding as a tool for persuasion rather than as a club to ensure that every MUTCD standard is followed down to the letter.  It was in no one's interest at FHWA HQ to have Congressmen asking pointed questions about why the agency was standing in the way of innovation.

To the extent that FHWA can be said to "hate" Clearview--and I don't know if that is true for the agency as a whole, since there has always been a plurality of opinion and there are reputed to be one or two Clearview enthusiasts at FHWA--I suspect a lot of that sentiment comes from resentment at having their hands forced before the implications of national rollout of Clearview could be worked through.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TrevorB on March 08, 2015, 01:32:30 PM
Spotted this in Hernando, Mississippi. One of the very few Clearview signs in the state.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.755363,-89.990152,3a,15y,214.5h,86.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZ22988sFqUMSlIL8afCDBQ!2e0

(http://i.imgur.com/crpWrgF.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 08, 2015, 02:53:44 PM
[...]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?

I think that's pretty unfair to FHWA, especially when you take into account that they made the switch to mixed-case text on most guide signs mandatory in the 2009 MUTCD. That is a huge change, and many cities have had to completely redesign their standard signage to compensate for it (case in point: Oklahoma City's mixed-case sign blades are an entirely different design from their most recent all-caps signs). Also, recent studies have indicated to them that Enhanced E(M)–that is, Series E with E(M) spacing tables–is king when it comes to legibility, so one can't fault them for backing off on Clearview.

As for the Clearview IA and FAQ...perhaps in the future before releasing any engineering document, be it an IA or a new MUTCD, FHWA should take the time to ask itself "What will be the result of this ending up at Oklahoma DOT?" (FHWA should probably keep it simple and use single-syllable words...)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2015, 06:52:10 PM
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.  The result? Crap like this.  All caps and numerals, Series B and D.....NOTHING that should involve Clearview.  Why is it even listed as an option????  (And again, Appendix D simply refers people to the IA online.)

(http://gozips.uakron.edu/~wdonova/ODOTbadClearview.jpg)

These have popped up like wildfire as well around cities; again, the narrow Clearview both looks bad and is not supposed to be there.  The IA enabled this by even including 2-W and 3-W in the equivalency table.
(http://gozips.uakron.edu/~wdonova/ODOTbadClearview1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 08, 2015, 07:16:55 PM
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.

It does not actually exclude the other Clearview typefaces from the approval.  The attempt to deprecate them came only much later, with the Clearview FAQ.

Quote
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.

As written, the IA allows the use of any typeface in the Clearview family, in any capitalization mode currently permitted by the MUTCD.  If FHWA wanted to forbid the use of the narrower Clearview typefaces, it would have had to say so expressly in the IA, which it did not do.  Many state DOTs initially failed to understand the rationale for using Clearview (which really makes sense only when the legend is mixed-case) and simply started using Clearview on all of their positive-contrast guide and general informatory signing, including ones (such as D-series signs in many states) that by default use all-uppercase legend.  Not many state DOTs did as TxDOT did, which was to overhaul its conventional-road guide signing to take advantage of Clearview.  (As an example, TxDOT county line signs used to be in all-uppercase with the county name in larger type, but with Clearview the county name was put in mixed-case while all-uppercase was retained for the "small words" that are useful for identifying the type of sign but are not really read.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2015, 07:33:10 PM
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.  The only thing worse is seeing those black-on-yellow Clearview signs in PA for things like "Fasten Seat Belts Next Million Miles"....
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on March 08, 2015, 07:51:20 PM
What's the point of those Safety Patrol signs, besides creating an opportunity for ODOT to take in ad revenue from State Farm?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2015, 07:52:15 PM
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!!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 08, 2015, 08:37:58 PM
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.

The FAQ is not regulatory.  Not all of its advice is good either--for example, it calls for interline spacing set equal to the lowercase loop height of Clearview, which is a good deal higher than that of the FHWA series of the same uppercase letter height.  Almost nobody follows this particular bit of advice (thankfully).

It is up to an individual state DOT to decide what elements of the FAQ it wants to make into standard requirements and to circularize its staff and consultant designers accordingly.

As for the IA, it cannot be "clear" on something not being allowed when it is, in fact, allowed.

Quote
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.

VDOT had some initial missteps.  Instead of redesigning their conventional-road guide signs from the get-go, like TxDOT did, they tried to use Clearview as a drop-in replacement.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on March 08, 2015, 08:47:58 PM
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.  Bad usage back in 2004 is understandable.  Bad usage today, not understandable. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on March 09, 2015, 05:12:59 PM
It seems like the CFEA has utilized those new super-hi-tech VMS to... display text in Clearview???

(http://i.imgur.com/PyX2hSZ.png)
Photo by Alex Nitzman

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on March 09, 2015, 05:20:50 PM
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.

That looks like something NYSTA would do. Recently, all of their cardinal directions have been Clearview, even on reassurance markers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on March 09, 2015, 07:37:41 PM

What's the point of those Safety Patrol signs, besides creating an opportunity for ODOT to take in ad revenue from State Farm?

That is exactly why. State Farm threw money at the state for the rights to wrap the safety patrol trucks with their logos.

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!!

Last summer I got a call that one of our trucks was broken down "on I-71 by Polaris" which really doesn't narrow things down. I'm headed north on 71, turns out they're stopped right under the Polaris bridge. By the time I got there the patrol was there, helping to fix a coolant hose. Since the truck barfed coolant, the guy called in another patrol truck that had a coolant pump on it. They said the camera guys saw the truck stopped and called them in.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 09, 2015, 09:04:37 PM
Bad usage back in 2004 is understandable.  Bad usage today, not understandable.

Agreed.

Quote
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.

This is true.  The title and link use the word "Policy" and the prescriptions are expressed in categorical language.  However, the document does not specify an enforcement mechanism, nor does it make a claim for its own legal authority.  FHWA has the right of review for construction plans for federal-aid projects, so in principle a state FHWA office can ask that a set of Clearview signing plans be revised in accord with the FAQ guidelines.  However, the state DOT is usually very close while Washington is very far away, and HOTO (which handles the MUTCD and related issues) is just a small part of HQ.  From FHWA's perspective the path of least resistance is for the state FHWA office to conduct a high-level dialogue with the senior traffic engineers at the state DOT, obtain their buy-in to the FAQ guidelines (expressed through a memo the DOT circulates), and hope that the state DOT's staff and consultants follow this lead.  I don't think state FHWA offices are really resourced well enough to police typeface usage on signs, even if they considered it a high priority, which I doubt they do.

In contradistinction, the IA memo has regulatory value because it lays out approved experimentation as provided for by a certain section of the MUTCD, which itself is a regulatory document since it is included in the CFR by reference and the Secretary of Transportation is authorized by an act of Congress to make rules (including adoption of a given edition of the MUTCD as the national traffic manual) that are codified in the CFR.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2015, 01:37:31 AM
Nice close-up of a Vancouver BC street blade. Funny how big they are in real life.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAWRu6VWUAAIoxc.png:large)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on March 18, 2015, 10:53:08 AM
^^ That's a sign you'll never see in Illinois.  He got his ass bounced out of the governor's office last November.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2015, 05:50:20 PM
^^ 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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on March 18, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
^^ 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).

Yeah, I noticed that too, when I saw the sign.  :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on March 18, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
^^ 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).

And those are just the notable ones.  From census data on name frequency, we can estimate there are approximately 9 males named Pat Quinn living in the US today, and about 163 named Patrick Quinn.  (Most of the Pats are probably actually Patricks who choose to write the short form of their name on government forms.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 19, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on March 19, 2015, 06:03:23 PM
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)

This can't be from the MTO, they dont use Clearview, right? Must be from the city.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on March 19, 2015, 06:54:39 PM
Some Toronto Clearview:

[images snipped]

This can't be from the MTO, they dont use Clearview, right? Must be from the city.

They did for a short time. A few months ago, I saw some on 406 and there's some on the QEW (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.242867,-79.74309,3a,75y,296.91h,89.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1slIkCo26AUCNc8_REKi_qMg!2e0).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on March 19, 2015, 07:12:53 PM
^ About 6 or 7 years ago, MTO put up about a dozen or so signs along the QEW and 406 using clearview font as a trial.  They haven't put any up since (and actually have replaced a few clearview signs with FHWA since the trial).

The signs that I have put up are along the City of Toronto maintained portion of the Gardiner Expressway (former QEW).  The City of Toronto exclusively uses Clearview signage on the expressways that it maintains.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 30, 2015, 04:21:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 30, 2015, 04:23:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 30, 2015, 05:54:27 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on April 30, 2015, 08:00:25 PM

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.

I have seen new BGSs in Houston where the exit tabs were in FHWA and the rest of the sign was in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on May 11, 2015, 10:03:18 AM
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:

Quote
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

* 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 11, 2015, 11:01:11 AM
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:

Quote
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

* 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.

Good question. I know NYSTA has FHWA in its plans. Anyone know what font was installed on the new Exit 50 BGS on the monotube?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 11, 2015, 12:14:07 PM
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:

Quote
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

* 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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 11, 2015, 12:25:18 PM
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:

Quote
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

* 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 11, 2015, 12:35:37 PM
I wonder if Texas will comply. My suspicion is that they will not until funding is threatened.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2015, 12:41:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 11, 2015, 12:49:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2015, 01:20:51 PM
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.

We have 291 pages filled with examples of 'Erroneous' and 'Worst Of' signage.  If the feds were going to do something, they could start with the thousands of non-compliant signs that already exist.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 02:55:53 PM
* Note - I believe "EC" was intended to be either EM or E.

What about E with EM spacing? I forget what the name is.

Enhanced E Modified. Some studies showed it being superior to Clearview and regular E(M).

I don't know all of the states using it, but probably a third of all new sign installs in Washington State over the last year have EE(M) (at least in the area where I live).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 11, 2015, 03:01:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 11, 2015, 03:10:30 PM
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.

Meant that to be a figure of speech.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 11, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
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:

Quote
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

* 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.

I know, but I still have my hopes. Quebec seems to at least notice the Mutcd. There is already a thread on this in the Canada boards, so I won't talk about it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on May 12, 2015, 09:33:08 AM
ALDOT's currently using a mixture of Clearview and Highway Gothic (I believe Series E(M)) on all new signs. E(M) on brand new signs at new interchanges and Clearview on replacement signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on May 12, 2015, 05:36:44 PM
VDOT has reigned in its use of Clearview in the past two years or so, with most new signs following a fairly strict interpretation of the FHWA's rules. Before, the font was used everywhere on most new signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 16, 2015, 09:55:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: KG909 on May 16, 2015, 10:02:07 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 17, 2015, 02:40:55 PM
Tacoma uses Clearview in the strangest places:

(http://i.imgur.com/11rxAPA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: codyg1985 on May 17, 2015, 02:42:42 PM
Eww, and a borderless sign, at that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 17, 2015, 05:13:13 PM
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:
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/100_9404-s.JPG)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 19, 2015, 04:15:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2015, 04:26:17 PM
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 has a more humanist feel than Highway Gothic, I believe by design. In that sense, I suppose you could consider it more feminine.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 19, 2015, 04:32:14 PM
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.

No, I don't think you can say it looks more "feminine". I'll admit, it looks more modern and "smooth" than FHWA though.

Calibri is another example. It looks smoother than Arial or Times New Roman, even though Times New Roman is a serif font, and calibri is humanist sans-serif.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:15:27 PM
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic?

No.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 6a on May 19, 2015, 05:21:32 PM
Figured you guys would appreciate this...

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/19/d992b7fc0f15d7a82d3b8fd9160c764f.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 19, 2015, 05:48:25 PM
Figured you guys would appreciate this...

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/19/d992b7fc0f15d7a82d3b8fd9160c764f.jpg)

I find it ironic. The "road to progress" is converting all road signage to Clearview!  :-D
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on May 19, 2015, 09:17:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on May 19, 2015, 10:49:23 PM
Figured you guys would appreciate this...

(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/19/d992b7fc0f15d7a82d3b8fd9160c764f.jpg)

I think you found the "smallest BGS in your area" too…
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on May 20, 2015, 02:23:30 PM
Just as a thought, does anyone find Clearview to be more "feminine" than Highway Gothic?

No.  Clearview reminds me of Transport (which I have a strong dislike for).  It's not the overall shapes of the letters (and numbers for that matter) that bother me, it's the stupidness with some of them.  The silly tail on the lowercase "l", the extra long tail on the "g", the "2", the "6", and the "9".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 20, 2015, 08:29:14 PM
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?

It didn't occur to me when Pink Jazz originally posed the question, but for this reason (comparing it to handwriting), I'm going to go ahead and say yes as well.  Specifically, I think the larger loops in letters like a and e are a trait of stereotypically feminine handwriting.  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, which would also be a feminine trait.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on May 20, 2015, 09:22:23 PM
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,

The lowercase letters actually are larger in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mwb1848 on May 28, 2015, 11:41:05 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 29, 2015, 12:42:16 AM
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.)

It's not just I-10. And it appears Arizona has been doing this for awhile:

http://goo.gl/maps/ZAZGH  :spin:

These signs were installed in Jan 2012.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 29, 2015, 03:28:20 AM
Based on my observations, distance numerals are not usually in Clearview here in the Phoenix area, although there are some exceptions.  Some even use Clearview for the whole numbers but the fractions in FHWA Series E(M).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2015, 03:19:01 PM
Those Arizona signs remind me of the Thruway ones, especially the exit tab.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2015, 04:04:58 PM
Those Arizona signs remind me of the Thruway ones, especially the exit tab.

And as reflective
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on June 02, 2015, 10:40:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 04, 2015, 06:57:15 AM
FHWA guidance is to use FHWA Series for the distance legend anyway, so there you go.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 04, 2015, 12:50:15 PM
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.

Their complaint was with SignCAD, which they require for all of their signing plans (produced in-house and by consultants).  At about the time Arizona adopted Clearview, SignCAD allowed users to enter precomposed fraction rectangles:  the problem was that the numerals were of the correct size when Series E Modified was used, but were too small when Clearview was used.  The initial fix was to require designers to confect the fraction rectangles by hand, rather than using precomposed ones, but this was considerably less convenient.  (TxDOT had the same problem and it is very evident in their Clearview signing plans, but they are less fussy about their signing than Arizona DOT and did nothing to address the issue.)  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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 04, 2015, 04:35:27 PM

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.

Numerals for exit numbers continue to use Clearview, however, it seems that distance numerals on most of the newest signs are now in Series E Modified.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 04, 2015, 12:03:08 PM
BTW, I wonder if ADOT is doing away with Clearview, since I saw two newly installed signs (for Loop 101 South and McClintock Drive) in Series E Modified at the US 60 Superstition Freeway westbound and the Loop 101 Price Freeway, replacing two of the few leftover button copy signs on the Superstition Freeway.  However, it is possible that these signs may be recycled, since the hazmat prohibition sign displays "HC" instead of the current MUTCD standard "HM".  If they were recycled perhaps they may have been pulled off from the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway, considering there is a construction project going on there.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on August 08, 2015, 03:21:52 PM
^ 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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 08, 2015, 04:33:18 PM
I think recycling is the likeliest explanation.  Arizona DOT doesn't carbon-copy and they are still calling for Clearview in recent signing plans.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 08, 2015, 05:44:39 PM
^ 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?

The gantry isn't shared with other signs, so I assume they are recycled then, probably taken from the Loop 202 Red Mountain Freeway as part of its widening project and moved to the US 60 Superstition Freeway to replace the old button copy signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: busman_49 on August 12, 2015, 01:14:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2015, 03:39:58 PM
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.

I-70 is pretty much all-Clearview west of US 42. Makes sense, as a lot of that stretch has been widened or reconstructed recently. Same thing on I-71 - most of it south of I-271 was widened in recent years and overhead signage was installed. Except for services signs, most of the button copy is gone as well, save a few assorted signs mainly in cities.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 20, 2015, 09:02:20 PM
Today, I just noticed a newly installed sign in Series E Modified at US 60 and Loop 101 North, this time in the eastbound direction.  This one has the correct MUTCD standard "HM" hazmat prohibition sign on it.

So it looks like ADOT may indeed be doing away with Clearview.  We will know for sure I think once the logo signs go up on the Superstition Freeway sometime in the fall, since all of the Phoenix area logo signs (not counting those that existed prior to 2013 which are part of the rural program) are entirely in Clearview (even though they shouldn't be since the service types on them are in all-caps).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 02, 2015, 12:18:47 AM
I just got an update about ADOT, and I got confirmation that ADOT will be discontinuing the use of Clearview due to it likely being rescinded by the FHWA.  However, here is where it gets interesting: ADOT is actually developing new signage specifications, and the plans call for new freeway signage to use Series E, rather than Series E Modified.  Signage for non-freeway roads will primarily use Series D, with some smaller signs (such as street name signs) and width-constrained signs using Series C.

Since the new sign specifications have not been finalized yet, ADOT is probably using Series E Modified for now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 18, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2015, 08:36:41 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on November 18, 2015, 08:48:45 PM
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)

It will be plain Series E.  I have seen a few new signs in Series E Modified (mostly on the US 60 Superstition Freeway), and I assume it is being used in the interim until the new sign specifications are finalized, so I assume ADOT may be reusing a prior specification for these signs. 

As for the logo signs still using Clearview, note that when ADOT launched its urban program in 2013 the specifications for logo signs were changed, with all new logo signs (even in rural areas) now using an exit tab regardless of how many service types are on the sign.  Prior to these new specifications, logo signs with only one service type had both the service type and the exit number in the body of the sign (originally in Series E Modified on older button copy logo signs, then changed to Series D on the switch to retroreflective sheeting).  In addition, the exit tabs are now much larger than they were under the old specifications, with the tab now spanning the entire sign on vertical layout signs.  Since ADOT never used the FHWA series fonts with the current layouts, perhaps this could be the reason why Clearview is still being used for logo signs.  In truth, logo signs really shouldn't be in Clearview due to the all caps text and numerals.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: blanketcomputer on December 01, 2015, 06:38:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 01, 2015, 08:36:14 PM
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.

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.  ADOT tried to mitigate this issue by allowing sign designers to draw fraction rectangles in Clearview by hand, but this was too much of a hassle and resulted in fractions that looked funky, thus ADOT reverted to using Series E Modified for fractions.  Later on, the standard practice became to use Series E Modified for all distance numerals, and not just those in fraction rectangles.  I wonder why Clearview is being used for the distance numerals on that sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: NJ on December 01, 2015, 08:38:48 PM
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/15/A15_dv_62_north.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 02, 2015, 12:16:14 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 02, 2015, 12:33:47 PM
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 real problem, as I understand it, is that the fraction numerals were too small.

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.

Considering that all-uppercase primary destination legend on guide signs is no longer permitted (per 2009 MUTCD), the path of least resistance for Clearview-using agencies wishing to go back to the FHWA Series is probably just to substitute the typefaces in their current Clearview-oriented standards.  For example, IIRC the old Texas standard for D-series signs was 6" all-uppercase Series D with 4.5" interline spacing, while the current standard is mixed-case with 8" uppercase and 6" interline spacing.  Frankly I like this approach better than just substituting mixed-case with same UC letter height for all-uppercase, which is what KDOT has done for its D-series signs.  This compromises legibility and looks awful.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 02, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
I'm not very familiar with KDOT's D-series signs. Do you have an example handy of what the newer mixed-case ones look like?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on December 02, 2015, 02:39:54 PM
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/PQ/A/15/A15_dv_62_north.jpg)

I've always liked the way Quebec does 'Exit Only' tabs and Clearview. Not too much, no negative contrast and numerals in shields, and looks clean.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on December 04, 2015, 03:49:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: NJ on December 04, 2015, 03:55:47 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2015, 04:04:07 PM
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.

About a year and a half ago, an FHWA employee sent a letter to Gray's Harbor, Washington denying their request for Clearview, stating that the FHWA doesn't intend to issue further approvals. This (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf) is the letter in question. Unless there's another part of the article that you're referencing?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on December 04, 2015, 04:07:25 PM
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:
It seems this might be the case, although districts that got permission in the past can probably keep using it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 05, 2015, 09:35:06 PM
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.

citation needed

Seriously, what does the Wiki entry cite as the source for such a blanket statement? We've all seen the Gray's Harbor letter. But I haven't seen anything definitive that existing permits are going to be cancelled.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ztonyg on January 25, 2016, 03:14:09 AM
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.

It looks like the signage specifications are finalized and ADOT is indeed going to plain Series E for freeways and Series D for non-freeway roads.

The sign specifications are here:

https://www.azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/manual-of-approved-signs/guide-and-information-signs (https://www.azdot.gov/business/engineering-and-construction/traffic/manual-of-approved-signs/guide-and-information-signs)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: busman_49 on January 25, 2016, 09:46:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 09:57:40 AM
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.

There we go. Effective in 30 days. As of February 24, 2016, fonts other than the FHWA series will no longer be permitted on new signage. Clearview is dead in the United States.

Existing signs that meet requirements can remain.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on January 25, 2016, 10:06:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: noelbotevera on January 25, 2016, 10:09:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 10:19:25 AM
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.

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.

NYSTA has a new batch of signs in Buffalo that are FHWA. They look quite sharp.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on January 25, 2016, 10:42:50 AM
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.
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.

In short & at least for PA; such could mean a variation of styles on installations like one sees at the I-76/US 202/422 interchanges in King of Prussia (when the interim approval first took effect) or more recently the new/replacement BGS' near the I-95/476 and I-476/MacDade Blvd. interchanges.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2016, 12:57:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 01:08:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 25, 2016, 01:30:34 PM
ALDOT was already moving away from Clearview, so nothing much will change here.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cu2010 on January 25, 2016, 02:30:45 PM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 02:47:13 PM
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!

They are, but I'll take them over what NYSDOT has been installing.

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.
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.

I know the stuff that isn't on the Thruway is a NYSDOT project, but the signs installed in I-190 do not match Region 5 signage of the same age.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2016, 02:58:26 PM
Could be contractor too.  Reminds me of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1066549,-76.2891397,3a,38y,106.36h,84.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1strJeeD2jBi5FAvZ7ILZuLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Or this:
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/100_9404-s.JPG)

I really, really hope that's the new NYSTA spec, but off-spec signs have snuck onto the Thruway before, even without NYSDOT influence.

EDIT: 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 03:46:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
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.

Assuming the new NYSTA signs are indeed the new standard, they went back to E(m). Of course, we won't necessarily know until the next batch of replacements unrelated to a major project are installed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
In the press release the FHWA says there will be no further development on alternative alphabets for highway signs. That leaves us stuck with Series Gothic, which is just fine and dandy for road geeks who love the look of that typeface. But functionally Series Gothic has a woefully minimal, primitive and inadequate character set when compared to modern commercial quality OpenType typefaces.

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.

Clearview had its own inadequacies, but its character set was more developed than Series Gothic. Each Clearview font file had around 340 characters, which really isn't all that much compared to some commercial typefaces that boast 1000, 2000 or even more glyphs for each font file. Versions of Series Gothic I've seen since 2000 vary between 83 or 111 characters. Font Bureau's Interstate has around 245 glyphs in each font, covering a bunch of basic territory Series Gothic fails to cover.

Clearview had extended Latin and Western European diacritics. Although its fractions were flawed, Clearview had more built-in fractions and (unlike Series Gothic) a complete set of numerators and denominators for making any fraction combination.

Neither Clearview or Series Gothic had numeral sets to support both proportional and tabular lining. Neither had native small capitals character sets, despite elements like cardinal direction signs and elements requiring large cap/small cap treatment. Neither had alphabets other than Latin; modern typefaces often add Cyrillic and Greek character sets. Clearview could have been more successful if Terminal Design had fixed a few issues and added some other missing features.

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.

Quote from: Pink Jazz
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.

Who knows for sure? That very situation contradicts one of their main knocks against Clearview, that somehow Clearview was making sign designs inconsistent due to its different widths, weights, etc. That problem was already present with the existing Series Gothic alphabet!

The real problem is people who don't know what they're doing regarding sign design. It does require some typographical knowledge and talent in graphic design. People who can't tell the difference between one font weight or another are unqualified to design signs as far as I'm concerned. They wouldn't last long at all in my sign company. We deal literally with thousands of typefaces, including numerous variants of the same typeface (one vendor's Futura isn't the same as another). I'm not sympathetic to people who can't tell the difference between various weights in Clearview and Series Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 05:22:06 PM

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 know Puerto Rico has diacritics on some signs due to the use of Spanish; I presume they might have been custom-designed by DTOP.  I have never seen Clearview used at all in Puerto Rico.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on January 25, 2016, 05:26:39 PM
Can I see
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?

EDIT: Disregard, found an older thread here. Seems it would be Series E with the kerning of E(M).

One thing I like about Caltrans is they appear to have thicker variants of both C and D, akin to E(M). But as far as I know, it's never been adopted nationwide, although some Oklahoma and Iowa signage seem to do something similar.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: getemngo on January 25, 2016, 05:27:31 PM
This is the darkest timeline. :-(

Seriously though, I'm not surprised at all that the FHWA is halting all development of new typefaces. While I very much like Clearview's appearance, its testing and rollout was, to put it politely, very uneven. After this, "caution" will be the name of the game for many decades.

E(m) is tried and true, and there's nothing overtly wrong with it, so why would a state agency try out another unproven font? It is probably possible to develop something that works even better, but any gains in legibility are unlikely to outweigh the cost of development (or the risk of development going wrong).

(As a former Clearview evangelist, I can't believe I typed that last paragraph!  :pan:)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2016, 05:36:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: corco on January 25, 2016, 05:46:26 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on January 25, 2016, 06:04:24 PM
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.

This. We're talking about road signs here - so 26 characters for each letter, in both upper and lowercase format, 10 digits for numbers 0-9, punctuation marks, a set of accented characters for the main vowels, some extra symbols, and that's it. What else do we need?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on January 25, 2016, 07:21:24 PM
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>
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2016, 07:22:10 PM
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.

This is also something I'm interested in knowing. I'm fairly certain that Series E(M) was introduced for button copy installations, but its use has continued anyways.

I seem to remember recent studies showing Series EE(M) to be superior to Clearview and E(M). But I couldn't provide a link.

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.

I very much agree, Bobby. Certainly there was a reason that Clearview was developed in the first place (out of curiosity or otherwise, there wouldn't have been an interest in Clearview if Highway Gothic were perfect).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 07:41:03 PM
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>

Yeah. That's what I was thinking of. They still have a boatload of button copy, but noooooooooo. Some of the replaced signs were post-button copy. There were a bunch of those on the NE corner of I-270 and downtown, such as this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9755794,-82.9958422,3a,75y,322.85h,103.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skBQXwZVqPnl9LgdUXBr1ag!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656). ODOT didn't finish dumping button copy until 2003ish.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TravelingBethelite on January 25, 2016, 08:08:39 PM
I found Clearview in Connecticut...send help.

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 25, 2016, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: corco
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 didn't say the Series Gothic typefaces needed to be expanded that far. But the example of Tehuti shows just how far some typefaces are being developed. And that's just for typefaces geared for predominantly Latin-alphabet use. It's common for Asian typefaces to go well beyond 8,000 glyphs. OpenType can support up to 64,000 glyphs in one font file.

Quote from: corco
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...

No, but extended Latin and Western European character sets should be mandatory. The fastest growing segment of population in the United States is the Latino/Hispanic segment. A bunch of people in Canada speak French. Some points of interest and geographic names within the US have Latin or European names that require the use of accented characters in order to be spelled out correctly. At least Clearview managed to cover that. Series Gothic won't let you do that unless you make some home-made, non-standard diacritics yourself.

It would be nice to have more than 3 built-in fractions, or better yet a full set of superior/inferior figures for auto-generating any fraction possible. It would be nice to have numeral sets with spacing tables that support tabular and proportional spacing. It would be nice to have a native small capitals character set, complete with all the accents available to upper and lowercase characters. An acceptably well featured OpenType typeface that covers those bases will have between 500 and 700 glyphs.

If the FHWA isn't interested in getting road sign design standards out of 1960's quality and mindset the FHWA should just get out of the font design business, study the best commercially available alternatives and settle on that for road sign standards.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on January 25, 2016, 08:55:45 PM
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.

(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7102675,-72.759674,3a,37.5y,318.84h,95.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE8D6ykU3w5XBHNfrp1ApvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 09:20:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Duke87 on January 25, 2016, 09:40:12 PM
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.

The reason it's all of them is because prior to 2011 Ridge Hill Blvd did not exist and the signs merely said Stew Leonard Drive. With the opening of the new street, the signs were all changed out to include it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 25, 2016, 09:43:07 PM
Michigan was a lot worse than Ohio for replacing perfectly good signs with Clearview signs just because.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 25, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
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.

FHWA is the official sign font for Mexico as well.

Actually, it is not.  Mexico has its own typeface family for traffic signing purposes.  The glyphs look similar to the (loosely) corresponding FHWA alphabet series for most letters, but some, such as P and R, are noticeably different, with larger loops.  One of the Mexican alphabet series falls midway between FHWA Series C and Series D in condensation level (typical letter width).

It is not uncommon to see the FHWA alphabet series used on traffic signs in Mexico, but this is generally because the fabricator has cheated and failed to use the actual Mexican typefaces.

Why just don't borrow the accented characters from the Mexican MUTCD and add them to the American MUTCD to accommodate for Spanish?

I'd suggest copying the strategy MTQ used for alphabet extension in pre-Clearview days, which was to borrow the diacritics from Univers.

It is more important that whatever approach is followed be consistent across the country and show adequate recognition of the fact that reading a traffic sign is not the same as reading a book.  There are far too many one-of-a-kind "swoopy" book tildes on US road signs in historically Spanish-speaking areas.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 25, 2016, 11:06:51 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 11:07:42 PM
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.


"Ñ" is actually a distinct letter in Spanish, so I can see why the tilde is always included.

BTW, Puerto Rico uses an "S curve" style tilde.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 11:10:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2016, 11:15:44 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 11:19:35 PM
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.

Ontario ended their trial (and replaced many of the signs), so the question in that province is whether or not Toronto will switch back.

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

I agree. BC has gone full Clearview and I don't see that changing. The Praries and Maritimes are the big unknowns.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2016, 12:50:22 AM
Clearview certainly has the advantage over Series Gothic in Quebec since it has diacritics for upper and lowercase characters.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2016, 12:57:19 AM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on January 26, 2016, 08:28:32 AM
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.

During a recent sign replacement job along US 202/322 near West Chester; PennDOT even went as far as transferring an existing BGS onto a new gantry but mask the Gothic Exton control city with one in Clearview.  Exhibit A (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.985381,-75.5896044,3a,75y,7.27h,87.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1solOJ6kbCkZfHjnfhpeiNEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The approach BGS' for this exit got a similar treatment.

Bold emphasis added to below-quote:
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.
^^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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 26, 2016, 09:24:09 AM
Quote
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.

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?

Commercial type foundries include all of the characters they can in order to sell more copies of fonts; they don't want to lose out on a sale because their font didn't support some special character the customer needed. But the people who would buy a copy of FHWA Series are people who intend to use it on a road sign, which isn't supposed to be using anything but unaccented letters anyway. Where's the financial incentive?

If you really want FHWA Series to have diacritics, ask sammi (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=11865) if it's OK for you to add them to the Roadgeek 2014 font. But I think what you really want is Interstate.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 26, 2016, 09:24:22 AM
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. 

InDOT has Clearview in southern Indiana along Interstate 65 at the new Lincoln/Kennedy bridges.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tdindy88 on January 26, 2016, 09:33:20 AM
I believe that bridge project is done by a separate group (the same doing the East End Bridge.) That, and Kentucky is supposed to be in charge of the downtown bridge with Indiana in charge of the East End. Either way, it shouldn't be technically viewed as an INDOT project. The state to my knowledge has never gone full in to using Clearview, all new highway projects have used the same font as always.

For the record though, and I don't know why, I've always found Michigan Clearview signs to be some of the better looking ones, compared to other surrounding states. It may just be me though. And I'm not talking about those interstate shields with the Clearview numbers in them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on January 26, 2016, 09:40:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2016, 09:58:01 AM
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.

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.

As far as the Ohio River bridges, I knew of that Clearview but that was a bi-state operation as I recall it, with Kentucky seeming to be in the driver's seat, and I would bet Kentucky's taste in font prevailed due to that.  Similar has happened at OH 8 and the Turnpike where the large project on OH 8 was an ODOT project which left some Clearview signs on Turnpike property, the only Turnpike vestige being the sign lighting they probably insisted on.  When two agencies have to collaborate, interesting things happen.  (Clearview has shown up on a couple gore signs on the Turnpike as well, but that may be thanks to contractors doing Ohio signage getting used to using Clearview.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on January 26, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
I thought the visibility advantage was also attributed to the serifs?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on January 26, 2016, 12:35:22 PM
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."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2016, 12:48:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2016, 01:47:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2016, 02:01:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on January 26, 2016, 02:04:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 26, 2016, 03:28:23 PM
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.

Clearview's creators encouraged agencies to think they would reach a nirvana of sign legibility if they used Clearview and upgraded to better retroreflective sheetings, but the actual Clearview research by TTI and others did try to control for sheeting type.  It was pretty consistently found that the tested versions of Clearview had a unit legibility advantage over Series E Modified that strengthened with age of the test subjects and ASTM classification of the sheeting.

This might have been attributable solely to the use of a higher lowercase loop height rather than (as claimed) opened counters and the variations in stroke width that come with humanistic design, but I would not count this against Clearview because it was meant to be a clean-sheet design from the start, while the design of Series E Modified has been fixed since 1958 at least and attempts to modify it for greater legibility would have been subject to the same pipe-and-slippers objections as Clearview.

The goal of the research was to come up with a typeface family that would offer greater legibility within existing design parameters; it was never to hobble the candidate typeface for the sake of ensuring it didn't have some kind of advantage over Series E Modified that traditionalists might think unfair.  Once the basic visual concept of Clearview was established in the course of the initial PTI studies (borrowing the humanistic aspects of the Transport typefaces), hunting for intrinsic features of typefaces that control unit legibility independently of sheeting type, proportions of lowercase letters with regard to capital letters, etc. fell to a separate (and quite complex) line of research pursued by others.  There is even a PhD dissertation out there (I forget author and title, but I think I have a downloaded copy somewhere) that runs to more than 400 pages on intrinsic legibility factors.

My own problem with the early Clearview research by PTI and TTI has more to do with how it was reported.  Clearview evolved as it was studied; initially it had the same 4:3 uppercase/lowercase loop height ratio as the FHWA series, and the proportions of the lowercase letters were increased only relatively late in the process.  Stroke width was also manipulated, allegedly for reasons of aesthetics rather than legibility (there was an indicated preference for blocky, relatively bold presentation similar to Series E Modified).  The research reports should have included full glyph drawings and a more precise characterization of features such as stroke width, relative proportion of lowercase and capital letters, etc. so that others could determine accurately to which version of Clearview the results pertained.  This failure to be highly specific about the technical characteristics of typefaces tested is a weakness endemic to sign lettering legibility research from the 1930's onward.  D.W. Loutzenheiser's 1943 paper on experimental signs for the Pentagon road network (which used early versions of what eventually, in 1948, became the modern uppercase FHWA alphabet series) did include glyph drawings, and from these it is evident that there were significant differences between the 1943 experimental typefaces and the ones eventually published in 1948.  However, none of the later landmark sign legibility papers (Forbes & Moskowitz on mixed-case lettering in 1950, Solomon on night visibility in circa 1958, the early British studies into Series E Modified as a motorway signing typeface, the PTI and TTI Clearview studies, etc.) has had this level of specificity.

It seems to me that those who say it was wrong to experiment with typefaces in hopes of building a better mousetrap have either forgotten, or simply never knew, how preoccupied the traffic engineering profession was with the looming problem of the older driver in the early noughties.  The immediate motivation for the original PTI Clearview research was a study (by McGee, I think) which suggested that it might be necessary to go up from 16" UC to 20" UC for overhead signs on freeways partly for this reason.  Clearview, with a headline 11% unit legibility advantage over Series E Modified out of the same sign panel area, was one response to this challenge; 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.

It is also important not to forget that a huge part of the motivation for yanking the Clearview IA is the use of the condensed Clearview alphabets on conventional roads.  These were never tested as thoroughly as 5-W/5-W-R, which were positioned in 2004 as the Series E Modified analogues, and still don't have published test results that I am aware of.  And FHWA still has much to do in setting a floor for legibility.  It is my strong suspicion that creating the option to use mixed-case letters other than Series E Modified in the 2003 MUTCD, and then making the use of mixed-case (regardless of alphabet series) mandatory in the 2009 MUTCD, has holed that objective below the waterline.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 26, 2016, 03:31:12 PM
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.

FHWA's summary of the Clearview early research stated "The use of Clearview as an alternative to the Standard Alphabets is allowed only on positive-contrast (white legend on a green, blue, or brown background) guide signs, as this contrast orientation is the only one that has demonstrated an improvement in legibility distance to date for those legends composed of upper- and lower-case letters when using specific series of Clearview lettering. The use of Clearview in negative-contrast color orientations, such as on regulatory and warning signs, has been shown to decrease legibility distance when compared with the FHWA Standard Alphabet series." (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/)  If research showed benefits for negative-contrast situations, it was not in any of the early research nor did FHWA ever modify interim approvals to allow it.  FHWA's letters actually stated that negative contrast DECREASED legibility (https://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/de_mutcd/pdf/20080731061923147.pdf) and stated outright that the font was for use in Mixed-Case positive contrast destination legend on guide signs only--not warning signs, ALL CAPS action messages/exit gore signs, street name blades, etc. etc. etc. where it is rampant in many places.  If Clearview is inferior in negative contrast, then the places using it that way are making a big, misinformed mistake, enabled by the Clearview vendor showing it off on their web site in the bad applications and selling the -B series fonts.  5-W and 5-W-R were the only appropriate ones all along.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 26, 2016, 03:47:26 PM
Clearview certainly has the advantage over Series Gothic in Quebec since it has diacritics for upper and lowercase characters.

The old MTQ approach of splicing Univers diacritics onto Series E Modified worked fine, however.

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.

I don't think Spanish uses the macron for anything, even loanwords from Japanese (the main context in which macrons are likely to be seen in English text, other than IPA transcriptions, which are themselves a special case).  The likeliest conflict is with ã in Portuguese--the suffix -ção is the Portuguese equivalent of Spanish -ción and English -tion.  There are border towns and control city destinations in Portugal which it is logical to sign in Spain and preferred practice EU-wide these days is to use the endonym (e.g. in Austria, "Praha" rather than "Prag" or "Prague").  Plus Galician is similar to Portuguese and bilingual/local-language signing is the norm in parts of Spain where much of the population has a language other than Castilian Spanish as its mother tongue.

A final observation regarding Spanish typography:  the typeface you are talking about is called Autopista.  It was introduced in 1992 as a successor to Series E Modified, which the Spanish used directly (even to the extent of photocopying the glyph sheets from our Standard Alphabets pamphlet--I'm not sure how they did diacritics back then), but is now (as of a new set of direction signs regulations promulgated last year) deprecated.  Autopista has the bias-cut bar tilde.  The other modern Spanish traffic signing alphabet is called Carretera Convencional after its former normal sphere of use but is now supposed to be used on autopistas and autovías as well.  It is an adaptation of Transport Heavy with proportions changed to match the 4:3 UC/LC ratio of Series E Modified and Autopista, and it has a straight-cut (not bias-cut) bar tilde that cannot be distinguished from a macron in any meaningful sense.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on January 26, 2016, 05:24:19 PM
...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.

One horrible, unsanctioned experiment followed by another IMO, that leads to ridiculous-looking signage to this day (particularly when a GDOT crew patches some Series D over E(M) just for the hell of it or because they are using the original sign specs rather than whatever the vendor was told to change post-letting as part of the E(M) transition); major projects are still being let with the sign design sheets laid out using Georgia D with annotations of "use E(M)". And there are still contractors and GDOT sign shops routinely using Georgia D instead of FHWA mixed-case Series D, 13 years later.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2016, 05:28:32 PM
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.

I'm blown away that no one, other than I think NE2(?), myself, and you have brought this up. Series E(M) exists only for button copy. I swear someone did some studies which showed EE(M) to be the best typeface of all.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on January 26, 2016, 05:41:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 26, 2016, 05:49:17 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on January 26, 2016, 05:51:36 PM
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
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on January 26, 2016, 06:03:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 26, 2016, 06:07:07 PM
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 know what you were referring to, but I found the stop sign requirement to be odd
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 26, 2016, 08:31:12 PM
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've never known Kentucky to install a Clearview sign. All the Clearview I've seen has been done by contractors. So I doubt seriously if the state ever bought a license for the font.

Now VDOT, on the other hand...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2016, 09:24:24 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/FBInter.svg)

Regarding Font Bureau's Interstate type family, it is a much better looking typeface than Series Gothic. Unfortunately it is not interchangeable with Series Gothic. Interstate has a lot more weights, from Hairline to Ultra Black. It just doesn't have the necessary widths to cover Series A, B, C, D, E and F widths. At best, I could only hack the metrics of Interstate's regular width fonts to copy the limited number of characters Series Gothic does cover.

Quote from: Scott5114
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?

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.

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.

Quote from: upstatenyroads
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."

Ugly traffic signs have existed long before the inspiration to create Clearview. The Clearview typeface has been an easy scapegoat for badly designed and poorly fabricated traffic signs over the past decade. The truth is many of these Clearview-based abominations would look terrible regardless of the typeface used.

Traffic engineers have their expertise in certain areas, but that expertise doesn't always extend into the principals of typography and graphic design. Talent definitely has a role to play in this. Someone who has an eye for good design is more likely to quickly spot a design issue while others with no design talent would be prone to overlook it. Then there's also the possibility no one in that traffic sign making department cares about quality control. And there's also the possibility some low paid schlep hired by the traffic engineers is doing the graphic design grunt work, whether he is qualified to do the work or not.

Oklahoma certainly has more than its fair share of badly designed highway signs. That's something I've been seeing the entire time I've lived here, and not just in the years Clearview has been available.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on January 26, 2016, 10:16:06 PM
...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. 

I wish more attention had been paid to Georgia's implementation of "Series D Modified" back when they were using it on the majority of their freeways.  The 20-inch letters with the slightly narrowed character width made for some excellent looking signs and in my completely unscientific observation there seemed to be less halation and the signs just seemed more legible, especially at night.

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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: odditude on January 26, 2016, 11:00:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 27, 2016, 02:57:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114
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?

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.

The relevant section is §2A.13¶4:
Quote
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.

So I suppose it's up for interpretation as to whether diacritics are "punctuation" or whether they are "necessary to avoid confusion". No Support statement is given for this paragraph, but I'd imagine that the punctuation specified is to be omitted to avoid cluttering the alphanumeric characters with glyphs that are not necessary to comprehend the message. Thus, "St Louis" instead of "St. Louis", "Tysons Corner" instead of "Tyson's Corner", and "Pena Blvd" instead of "Peña Blvd.".

Quote
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.

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?

I think it's more likely that you see whatever foundry sells Interstate draw up condensed versions of it roughly equivalent to the different sub-E series than you would to see Google blow money on giving away FHWA Series improvements for free.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2016, 04:18:07 PM
The relevant section is §2A.13¶4:
Quote
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.

LOL. Look at this sign that shows where the word "and" was removed in favor of an ampersand.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/569/23751058831_51b9ba509a_c.jpg)

I took this picture back in September only because of the evidence of sine rot, and didn't notice where the lettering had been changed until the picture started showing up in my laptop's screen saver (which is my iPhoto library).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 27, 2016, 04:37:34 PM
Double whammy, that's got an apostrophe too.

Then again, that's a "should" statement, not a "shall", which means it's not absolutely forbidden, but why would someone would go out of their way to change that sign?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on January 27, 2016, 05:12:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on January 27, 2016, 07:35:08 PM
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.

The square D was weird. I don't remember seeing it everywhere, but when I saw it it did strike me as odd. The typeface from Page Studio Graphics doesn't have that odd D.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Buffaboy on January 27, 2016, 07:56:48 PM
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.

eww
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 27, 2016, 08:49:19 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Buffaboy on January 27, 2016, 10:42:38 PM
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.

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).

I guess you're right. It's not as bad as this (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3455965,-81.5652151,3a,75y,14.82h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shcE_iW_awuSgsHnLPQFPhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 12:26:11 AM
Quote from: Scott5114
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?

Legibility needs in graphic design extend far beyond the mere scope of traffic sign design. Lots of type families have been developed to read well as small point sizes in print. There is a growing number of typefaces that have been geared for electronic displays (computer screens, phone screens, etc.). Road geeks act like Series Gothic is the most legible typeface ever created even though there is very likely other typefaces that would beat it in legibility tests.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

Diacritics are only one of the things missing. It needs native small caps, a full set of numerators for auto-generating fractions and probably a good number of alternate characters.

Designing a typeface, or rather an entire type family, correctly requires a hell of a lot of work. I don't see much of a point in applying that kind of work to an existing font design if the end result will never be used. It's not difficult to learn the basics of using font editors like FontLab Studio. The font building process can still be very time consuming.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 28, 2016, 01:33:01 AM
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".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 02:18:22 AM
Clearview may look better, but it doesn't work better. Seems the developer himself fails to understand that, for better or worse, legibility comes before aesthetics.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on January 28, 2016, 06:10:14 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 28, 2016, 09:39:36 AM
That's not a lot of money for a font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 28, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
Looks don't mean crap if it doesn't work better. Take I.M. Pei's architectural designs. Might look cool to architects, but not functional. I lived in an I.M. Pei-designed dorm my freshman year. Thing was tiny, dark, a rat maze, and had no circulation because windows were located in poor locations and doors were staggered. Also not compliant with current fire codes due to the dead-end hallways or ADA requirements because you can't fit a wheelchair in the halls, but that's beside the point.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on January 28, 2016, 10:27:30 AM
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on January 28, 2016, 10:33:38 AM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2016, 10:39:17 AM
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.



It's not uncommon for people to complain about something, even though they knew it was experimental.  Of course, he was hoping it would be the main font used, which would help dramatically increase the revenue.  If I thought I had something that would bring in a lot of money and I was told it's going to be banned, I would complain too!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 10:51:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 28, 2016, 12:04:40 PM
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.

The FHWA fonts don't need a large variety. They're only intended for signage. That's the point. It only needs to contain the characters suitable for signage. What's your obsession with this?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 28, 2016, 12:18:15 PM
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.”

This is part of what seems to me a rather short-notice and clumsily organized fightback, which was published in the Atlantic Monthly online edition as well.

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.

Actually, within the terms of the original IA, the only part of the Hellertown/Bethlehem Clearview example that is not kosher is "412" within the keystone shield.  The IA did not require that Clearview be used in mixed-case only or that it never be used in shields.  Technically it allowed Clearview digits in shields as long as they appeared in positive contrast (never true for the US shield, but always true for the Interstate shield, and true for some state route shields).  It also allowed the condensed Clearview typefaces.

When the IA was issued, it was already known (preliminarily) that the Clearview B typefaces offered inferior legibility.  The problems with the Clearview digits, condensed Clearview typefaces, and all-uppercase Clearview surfaced much later, and FHWA's attempt to discourage the use of these took the form of non-regulatory guidance.

There is another factor to keep in mind:  interline spacing.  One of the fundamental rules of thumb in US guide sign design is that spacing between adjacent lines of mixed-case legend is equal to three-quarters the capital letter height, which is also the lowercase loop height for the FHWA series.  The final version of Clearview was designed to be used with three-quarters capital letter height between lines (which in Clearview's case is a bit less than lowercase loop height), which meant an experimentally measured 10% legibility increase out of the same sign panel area when 5-W-R is used.  In the non-regulatory Clearview FAQ that came out when FHWA tried to stamp on the implementation problems with Clearview, FHWA urged practitioners to set interline spacing for Clearview legend equal to the lowercase loop height of Clearview, and as the difference between the two is pretty close to 10% (84% for Clearview versus 75% for the FHWA series), this guideline translates to an approximate 10% increase in reading distance out of approximately 10% added sign panel area, i.e. no advantage for Clearview.  This is an example of rigging things in favor of the FHWA series.

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".

The writer's capsule CV identifies him as an architecture journalist.  Given the long history of culture clash between architects and highway engineers, I don't think he particularly cares whether he misdescribes (or dismisses) a road enthusiast Web forum as a "font forum."  And if he had read more closely--it sounds like he did not--he might have realized the Orange County example being talked about is of Frutiger rather than Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 28, 2016, 03:12:40 PM
That's not a lot of money for a font.

When I was working for a newspaper, we bought a couple of font packs that had hundreds (yes, hundreds) of fonts for about $10. So yeah, that's a lot of money for one font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 28, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
I've worked for universities that license (not own) one font for $3,000+ per year. I mean, you can get free fonts easy but the quality of those fonts will vary greatly. It's not easy to create a font that's legible, accessible and broadly available.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 28, 2016, 03:44:30 PM
I remember retail CDs, such as Key Fonts, back in the 1990's. They would boast hundreds of fonts or even a thousand or more faces. Nearly all were garbage quality. Poorly digitized, poorly kerned and featuring minimal character sets. Some didn't even work properly.

At least one or more of those companies tried pirating the digital outlines of high quality commercial fonts for their junk fonts CDs. Adobe sued one of those companies and won. The defendant tried to argue the letter shapes weren't protected under copyright law, only the font names. Adobe countered saying they were selling software, not just letter shapes. The court found the offending fonts were identical to the font outlines (same number of anchor points, anchor point positions, kerning tables, hinting, etc.) in Adobe's font files.

Today many thousands of free-ware fonts are available at several font sharing web sites. Some sites, like Font Squirrel, offer up some actually really good quality typefaces. As for other very popular typefaces, such as Gotham or Proxima Nova, you gotta whip out that credit card and pay quite a bit to use them legally.

Those junk font collection CDs were poor alternatives to the higher quality font packages bundled in with CorelDRAW and Deneba Canvas. Historically Adobe has been very stingy with their fonts, never bundling very many with Illustrator or PageMaker. The Creative Cloud service TypeKit has lots of good typefaces available, but your Internet connection always must be connected to "sync" any of them to your computer system.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 28, 2016, 03:53:32 PM
TypeKit has been a blessing, as has Google Fonts. We use Google Fonts at work for our university website as the sync speed between the stylesheet and Google's servers is very quick. I use those same fonts across my own websites with no lag.

TypeKit has been good for Adobe and for the Creative Suite, as long as you have an internet connection. A free plan will allow you to use a significant number of fonts (variants may vary and be limited), but a not-so-cheap plan will give you hundreds of fonts and thousands of variants.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 28, 2016, 06:49:28 PM
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.

Not that it's implemented as such or recommended anywhere, but if you use the small-cap proportion required by the MUTCD and make the uppercase letter Series E and the small-cap letters E(M), you get something pretty close to typographically-correct small caps.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on February 04, 2016, 10:10:00 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mjb2002 on February 06, 2016, 08:56:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 06, 2016, 11:14:35 AM
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

It is a not-bad effort at simplifying a complex technical issue for popular consumption.

FHWA has put materials related to the revocation on the MUTCD website (scroll down to the "Terminated" part):

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm

The Technical Brief sheds a little more light on the motivation for the decision.  It is not closely written and (to me, anyway) is as clear as mud, but it does have citations to research reports that deal in more detail with many of the issues that came into play in the decision and have been mentioned in Clearview-related threads on this forum, such as the legibility disadvantage of Clearview digits.  Of interest to me is FHWA's suggestion that the initial research results in favor of Clearview were skewed by word recognition effects.  A proper experimental design would have addressed these confounders by using nonsense words or by treating them as blocking factors.  I don't recall that the TTI report (the one of the early reports that is actually available for download) described the experiments in that much detail, so I think someone at FHWA HOTO must have asked Hawkins' team for access to the original data.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on February 06, 2016, 02:05:54 PM
I wonder if any of the data-driven analysis noted in the technical brief will affect Meeker's hurt feelings where he said that Helen Keller could tell Clearview is better, even from the grave. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1411.msg2122977#msg2122977) 

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.

They don't have to take down Clearview signs immediately, but they should not specify any more, and when worn out, Clearview signs must be replaced with signs in the standard lettering.  With some places probably having design plans in processing/manufacturing with Clearview that may not be installed for a while, we'll probably see Clearview signage in the wild for a long time, just hopefully as a dwindling minority over time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Central Avenue on February 06, 2016, 05:44:47 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on February 06, 2016, 06:49:16 PM
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.

Even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Clearview, I didn't *dislike* it to the degree that many did. In fact, I admit that there were some legibility bonuses when implemented correctly. But the rampant incorrect implementations and the lack of universal applicability (only approved for destinations on highway guide signs) was its downfall.


What would really be good at this point is to start seriously studying a transition from FHWA E(M), which was designed for button copy, to the proposed Enhanced E (FHWA E series font with E(M) spacing).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Kacie Jane on February 06, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
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.

I think you summarized most of my own feelings towards Clearview as well, most particularly your first line.  My problem isn't with Clearview as a font, it's with all the "behind the scenes" stuff that went on around it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mukade on February 06, 2016, 08:07:07 PM
To me, there were a couple of things:
- The benefits seemed very hard to believe - even at the beginning. I thought I read articles questioning those claims years ago, and they now seem to be proven right.
- 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. For states that replaced old signs with Clearview ones as needed (I think Kentucky was this way), it didn't matter to me as much.

In short, when I think of Clearview, I think of a huge waste of public funds.


Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 06, 2016, 08:37:15 PM
- 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.

You forgot Ohio. There are a bunch of Clearview signs that replaced retroreflective signs. Ohio dropped button copy in 2003-04.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on February 06, 2016, 09:10:36 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on February 08, 2016, 12:14:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 08, 2016, 10:26:56 AM
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.

Thank you. There really isn't much research out there and I don't see FHWA making any changes without a significant amount of research after what happened with Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 08, 2016, 10:33:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on February 08, 2016, 11:27:55 AM
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.

There's been some research into it at the Texas Transportation Institute. EE(M) was included as a third option alongside traditional E(M) and Clearview. You can read the study at http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2014-3.pdf .
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 08, 2016, 01:06:21 PM
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.

The MUTCD permits it.

Up until MUTCD 2003, agencies were required to use the FHWA alphabet series on signs and there was no letter case requirement.  This meant that in order to conform while using mixed-case lettering, Series E Modified was the only option.  Of course a few state DOTs and many, many local agencies nationally used vendor-supplied mixed-case alphabets and so were in technical violation for decades.  Wichita, for instance, has used mixed-case versions of Series B, C, and D on street name signs for as long as I can remember, and my memories go back to the late Carter administration.

Since MUTCD 2003, there have been FHWA-approved mixed-case versions of all the FHWA alphabet series, and FHWA does not require a particular series for any given application.  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.

Freeway guide signs have used mixed-case lettering for primary destination legend almost from the very beginning, but since the MUTCD does not absolutely require that the alphabet series used be Series E Modified, it is open to Arizona DOT to use even mixed-case Series B if it wishes, though of course that would be a legibility disaster.

MnDOT has been an interesting case.  The permissive policy with regard to mixed-case series other than Series E Modified has been in place for over 10 years now, but they kept right on using Series E Modified and ignoring the other mixed-case series.  Then in 2011 their state signing engineer, who had been in the position for decades and had a considerable amount of moral authority, died.  Now I am starting to see more and more MnDOT construction plans coming down the chute with mixed-case lettering in the more condensed series.  It is not a good look.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2016, 02:10:53 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 08, 2016, 03:16:35 PM
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.

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.

When that rulemaking was in progress, the only approved typefaces were Series B, C, D, E, F (all uppercase-only), and Series E Modified (mixed-case).  I recommended that Series E Modified should be the only mixed-case alphabet used because it had superior unit legibility to B, C, D, and E.  We still don't have published unit legibility values for the new mixed-case series.

Many state DOTs (including Caltrans, WSDOT, SDDOT, and MnDOT) had already chosen to use conventional-road guide signs with mixed-case Series E Modified.  MUTCD 2003 legalized this practice retroactively, and we would be in better shape if those state DOTs' example were the one that was followed.  However, at the time I was already aware that Georgia DOT was using a mixed-case Series D on freeway guide signs in lieu of the officially approved Series E Modified.  Notwithstanding the standing requirement to use only the FHWA series, I took a realistic view about the likely use of vendor-supplied mixed-case alphabets, and feared allowing mixed-case lettering without requiring it to be in Series E Modified would have the effect of legitimizing widespread use of these extended alphabets, legibility and font conformity be damned.  I didn't expect FHWA to come out with its own mixed-case alphabets.  That development came much later, in 2004 with the publication of the revised Standard Highway Signs, and was a complete surprise.

To me, EE(M) is the next step, because it's like E(M) without the wide stroke for the buttons.

It is a bit of a misconception that the alphabet we call Series E Modified was designed "for the buttons."  That was actually true only for original Series E Modified, which was uppercase only, and in California used for ground-mounted freeway guide signs that did have button retroreflectorization.  The lowercase letters that form the mixed-case alphabet we now call Series E Modified were originally in a completely different series that had lowercase letters only and was called (surprise!) Lowercase.  They were originally used only on overhead-mounted freeway guide signs, which had external illumination and no retroreflectorization; they were initially paired with Series D at a 3:2 uppercase/lowercase ratio.  Pairing with Series E Modified at the present 4:3 uppercase/lowercase ratio came later.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2016, 03:57:14 PM
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.

Nothing's more embarrassing than mis-identifying a font. I could have swore this was EE(M). It looked thinner.

<clipped>

Good read, JN. Thanks for the information. I figured there was more to the story behind E(M) than just the buttons, but frankly, I didn't know any better.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on February 08, 2016, 07:18:54 PM
For reference, here's a sign in Series E with Series Em spacing. I confirmed this with NYSDOT R4 shortly after the sign was put up. It wasn't designed this way on purpose, it just happened, but the engineer and I talked about it and she agreed that this looked better than the thicker Em lettering.

The way I understand it, Series Eem is pretty close to this. Correct?

(http://af5.doesntexist.org/roads/brighton.png)

NYSDOT R5 has a few signs with this type of lettering along I-86 in Chautauqua County and if memory serves correctly, one of them is on the overhead on the Chautauqua Lake Bridge along side a regular Em sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: dcbjms on February 08, 2016, 07:27:44 PM
Looks about right, even with the modifications GSV does to the image.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on February 08, 2016, 07:28:12 PM
The way I understand it, Series Eem is pretty close to this. Correct?

Yes. Here's that sign re-made using the Roadgeek 2014 Series EEM font:

(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NY_SeriesEEM_Example_zpszffprhrt.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on February 09, 2016, 09:31:47 AM
To clarify, Em is the thicker variant, EEm is the slimmer variant? EEm looks far superior and the spacing/kerning nicely applied.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on February 09, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
To clarify, Em is the thicker variant, EEm is the slimmer variant? EEm looks far superior and the spacing/kerning nicely applied.

Basically E has a "normal" stroke. Em has a thicker stroke and wider kerning (to compensate for the thicker stroke) compared to E and finally EEm takes the normal stroke of E and combines it with the wider kerning of Em and you get what you see above which IMO looks really good.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wolfiefrick on February 09, 2016, 12:57:42 PM

(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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on February 09, 2016, 01:53:03 PM

(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.

It looks more like its from the default CMYK palate of Illustrator.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 09, 2016, 02:07:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wolfiefrick on February 09, 2016, 02:16:14 PM
It looks more like its from the default CMYK palate of Illustrator.
He uses Inkscape.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on February 09, 2016, 02:23:49 PM
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?

B has a thicker stroke, C, D and E have regular strokes, Em and F have thicker strokes
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Zeffy on February 09, 2016, 09:08:16 PM

(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.

RGB values are 0, 150, 109. I have a slightly modified color palette I use for all my items now:

Green: 0, 150, 109
White: 247, 247, 247
Yellow: 255, 215, 0
Blue: 0, 78, 165
Black: 20, 20, 20
Red: 195, 33, 50
Brown: 140, 79, 39
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 13, 2016, 06:25:17 PM
As Clearview meets its demise, I found another municipality that uses it. Saratoga Springs, NY (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0732806,-73.78762,3a,43.9y,52.67h,87.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBY607lq7b3mooQH5aEzCmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There are A LOT of these.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 15, 2016, 08:03:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
...something that was not tested properly.

The interim approval WAS the test.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadfro on February 15, 2016, 05:19:28 PM
...something that was not tested properly.

The interim approval WAS the test.

You could view it that way, but it wasn't the "real" test.

Usually there is a study (or a number of studies) sanctioned by FHWA before a traffic control device makes it to the level of MUTCD interim approval. It has been argued that the original Clearview testing done prior to the interim approval was later found to be flawed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: shadyjay on February 15, 2016, 05:59:08 PM
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: noelbotevera on February 15, 2016, 06:03:39 PM
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?

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)
I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 15, 2016, 06:07:33 PM
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?

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)
I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.

It's series D Highway Gothic. Same font, just different width. The road text (Scenic Drive) is in Series B here:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5746/19962192354_2e3510e829.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/wpZsjf)
Whoop-Up Drive eastbound approaching Scenic Drive (https://flic.kr/p/wpZsjf) by Sign Geek (https://www.flickr.com/photos/135438121@N07/), on Flickr

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 15, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
Who on earth thought that EXIT ONLY tab looked okay?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 15, 2016, 08:33:39 PM
Who on earth thought that EXIT ONLY tab looked okay?

That whole sign is awful; from the Helvetica in the shields, to the incorrect shield (the 3 shield is the wrong shield), very small lettering 'TO' that probably can't be read from the average motorist, to the the compressed/stretched/messed up EXIT ONLY panel. I can't even tell if the EXIT ONLY is series C or D.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on February 16, 2016, 01:22:46 PM
Are we looking at a combo Highway Gothic/Clearview sign here for Exit 35 on I-95 NB in CT?

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)
I'm not a font person, but I believe that's Series B Highway Gothic. Clearview would be noticeably different.

It's series D Highway Gothic. Same font, just different width.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: peterj920 on February 17, 2016, 04:59:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2016, 07:43:04 AM
N.Y. Times op-ed: Easy-Reading Road Signs Head to the Offramp (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/easy-reading-road-signs-head-to-the-offramp.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 08:47:19 AM
Well, as of Wednesday, Clearview is dead in the United States. I'd write an obituary, but the Clearview I'm familiar with (NYSTA, PennDOT, ODOT) is so bad that I don't have anything good to say.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on February 26, 2016, 09:05:01 AM
I know the MTO played around with Clearview a bit, such as on the Red Hill Valley Parkway exit sign in Hamilton, but the City of Toronto has seemed to fully adopt it on their roads. Practically every overhead BGS and BBS on the Gardiner uses clearview now, they put those clearview signs up around the time the Gardiner construction started, which I believe was April 2014. Needless to say, I wonder if the City of Toronto will conform and stop putting new Clearview signs up if a new sign is needed.

Interestingly, GO Transit and Metrolinx seem to be very fond of Clearview, as they practically use it everywhere now on the GO system, here are some examples in Union Station since the York Concourse opened:

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/001_zpsntbwfogj.jpg)

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/005_zpsq1eotqmi.jpg)

(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/wl/t34.0-12/12767632_10153638140484064_1251221590_n.jpg?oh=ab5982d42325165c88a716548e5bd4f2&oe=56D2404E)

(http://s59.photobucket.com/user/MrSG-1/media/006_zpspajcqj8k.jpg)

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/006_zpspajcqj8k.jpg)

And now we have a real awful one below...

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/002_zpsqcpc05ut.jpg)

What is a BaySt, is that some sort of concert venue, I've never heard of a BaySt before.  :D

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)

As an aside....anyone who knows Toronto knows how awfully inaccurate this diagram is, then again it's supposed to show the lines rather than be geographically correct. This diagram would lead us to believe that Bloor St and York University are at the same distance north from downtown.  :D Not to mention Oriole station, which is at Leslie and the 401 is south of Bloor and York University stations.


Lastly, something road related, I took this last pic while on the subway this week, showing a view of the NB Allen at the Hwy 401 exit, it looks really nice in my opinion and shows how much better Clearview is in my opinion:

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/007_zpseagzewmf.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 26, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on February 26, 2016, 01:02:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: formulanone on February 26, 2016, 02:55:43 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JMAN_WiS&S on February 26, 2016, 03:13:54 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on February 26, 2016, 03:39:16 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2016, 03:58:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2016, 05:21:51 PM
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.

I don't think it was. What it did show is that older people can have trouble with E(M) and that some changes are needed to assist them. I could certainly see applications for the font beyond road signs because of that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on February 26, 2016, 05:31:54 PM
Has/did the FHWA done any research into Series EEM before approving Clearview (or even now?) Surely there should be some kind of trial test or something.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: authenticroadgeek on February 26, 2016, 09:20:57 PM

(http://michiganhighways.org/clearview/Interstate_2di_clearview.gif)
(Chris Bessert, michiganhighways.org)

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wxfree on February 26, 2016, 09:24:32 PM
Long Live Clearview!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on February 27, 2016, 07:23:15 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on February 27, 2016, 10:39:14 PM
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).

Yeah, I thought that one was Clearview, but looking at some of the letters, I see that it is not. But those signs inside Union Station, I'm fairly well certain that is clearview.

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.

I was in Niagara Region today, and those signs on the Toronto bound QEW are in fact still there, such as the Red Hill Valley Parkway exit only sign, as well as the diagrammatical sign before reaching the 407/403 West interchange. They are still kicking and I don't expect them to be changed anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2016, 03:56:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 28, 2016, 04:33:11 AM
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?

I think that's true for personal consumerism, but not so much so when the money being spent is from a public coffer: at that point, whatever's cheapest will do.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on February 28, 2016, 07:54:09 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: riiga on February 28, 2016, 07:59:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: authenticroadgeek on February 28, 2016, 02:53:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: CrystalWalrein on February 28, 2016, 07:48:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on February 28, 2016, 07:53:32 PM
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.

 :confused:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on February 28, 2016, 09:18:48 PM
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.

Actually it isn't, because I looked closely at the letters while on the train ride home on Friday, (well I've taken it so many times, what else is there to do) and it appears that the lowercase a looks different from a Clearview lowercase a. The lowercase a in this font's tail just goes straight down, a Clearview lowercase a almost has like a diagonal cross in it's tail, if that's the best way to explain it.

I tend to believe if I see that lowercase l with the tail, then it's clearview, but that's obviously not the case here.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 29, 2016, 11:39:48 AM
I actually wonder if VDOT will consider Enhanced E Modified in the future if approved.  VDOT was apparently interested when they updated their Clearview rules in 2013.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on February 29, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic.  No other BGS' were replaced.  I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: paulthemapguy on April 12, 2016, 07:12:11 PM
DuPage County, Illinois, even uses Clearview on their bathroom signs!!

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1690/25792647914_69b407ee08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fid4C7)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on April 12, 2016, 07:22:41 PM
DuPage County, Illinois, even uses Clearview on their bathroom signs!!

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1690/25792647914_69b407ee08_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Fid4C7)

Reminds me of the Clearview I saw last weekend. Installed by the city in some public downtown tunnels, and a mall. I like the look honestly.

(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/IMG_20160409_164535_zpspuretd6j.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wxfree on May 02, 2016, 09:28:53 PM
TxDOT's latest highway designs, for June contracts, still include Clearview signs.  I don't know when the plans were drawn or approved or what else may be involved.  The revisions for the May plans are online, and don't seem to include relevant changes.  Unless it's changed by some other means, it looks like new Clearview signs may be going up for another year or two as these projects get completed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 09:33:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2016, 09:44:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 10:02:33 PM
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.

That's only because everything is posted in km/h, Canadian cars show km/h more prominently, and gas is sold in $/liter. From spending quite a bit of time in Canada, Imperial is still used for quite a bit, notably cooking (temperatures) and height (at amusement parks, for example). Quite a bit that isn't noticeable on the forums is used in daily life, at least in Ontario. Canadian radio has ads for stuff in Imperial, pizza sizes are listed in inches, weight of some things is in pounds (and I don't just mean the McDonald's Quarter Pounder).

Britain might not "officially" use Imperial, but speed limits are in MPH, for example.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 02, 2016, 10:20:59 PM
Imperial is still used for quite a bit
I 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.
Coming closer to the specialty of this forum - most car manufacturers switched to all-metric hardware, Harley-Davidson being one of lase exceptions (not exactly car, but well). Some things slowly changing, some are stuck for centuries to come (electric connectors and marine navigation - which is still "driving" on left.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on May 02, 2016, 10:44:45 PM
The Canadian Football League is still in yards as well
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 02, 2016, 10:52:39 PM
Mainland Europe and possibly parts of Latin America might be the only places where metric is used almost exclusively. Most of the Commonwealth still uses Imperial for some things and that's not going anywhere, while the US uses metric for quite a bit, especially in science (everything I deal with is metric, even if it comes from the US), the food industry (drinks are often sold by multiples of a liter), and medicine (doses are in milligrams).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 03, 2016, 12:44:32 PM
Regarding Canada:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/jyjm6utrgy9gxbc606ok.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on May 03, 2016, 12:52:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 01:08:44 PM
Cups and teaspoons are neither imperial nor metric. Neither is pinch (of salt).
Actually with typical cooking accuracy of measurement there is no difference between 240 ml cup containing 16 tablespoons of 15 ml  or 48 teaspoons 5 ml each on one hand  and 8 oz cup of 16 tablespoons (1/2 oz ea)  or 48 teaspoons (1/6 oz) on the other.  I guess the root cause is that average human mouth doesn't really change in size after conversion to metric - so spoons must have same size, give or take.
Just for the record: my 26 oz mug should not be used for cooking measurements.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 01:11:46 PM
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.
But I am using this as an example of how typical measurement system can change - and sky doesn't fall.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on May 03, 2016, 02:28:33 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 02:56:36 PM
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.
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on May 03, 2016, 03:52:49 PM
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.
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.

Um, yes, I know that, but I'm a little sick of the metric-only morons who think that their system is the only, superior one.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on May 03, 2016, 04:00:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 04:16:54 PM
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..
Or when you need to have metric and inch -dimensioned components in the same setup.
ANd units mess-up can cause real problems, see Gimly Glider story. So.. I really don't know what is best...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on May 03, 2016, 04:24:18 PM
And, by the way.. Is anyone here is old enough to recall how metric medications made their way to US?  Was there some transition period, or just new medications came out metric while old ones were phased out?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 04, 2016, 10:48:14 AM
I have been noticing some new panels for illuminated street blades in Gilbert, Arizona that are in FHWA.  The first ones I saw were at McQueen and Guadalupe Road in all-caps FHWA, while another one has recently been installed at Power Road and Queen Creek Road, this one being mixed case.  Both of these replaced existing panels that were in Helvetica. 

So it looks like for signalized intersections, Gilbert went from Helvetica, then to Clearview, and now to FHWA.  I wonder what are the plans for other cities around here that use Clearview for street blades.  Mesa and Chandler also used Helvetica prior to switching to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on May 04, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 04, 2016, 07:30:44 PM
BTW, I decided to email the City of Mesa (one of the earliest adopters of Clearview in the Phoenix area besides Phoenix itself), and I got confirmation that they are now using the FHWA fonts for street blades.  Regular street blades are using Series C, while those mounted overhead on traffic signals are using Series D.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 04, 2016, 07:50:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on May 04, 2016, 07:56:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on May 04, 2016, 08:54:52 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 04, 2016, 11:48:51 PM
If the Thruway Authority is going back to FHWA fonts, will it be the standard glyphs we see on most new signs, or the slightly different variation seen in numerous places on the Thruway system? This variation appears bolder and almost has a hand-painted type look to it, I've always thought it was a gorgeous font. It can be found mostly on signs approaching toll plazas and also on service plaza signs. Here is an example: https://goo.gl/maps/h5XGUWsFAy62
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 02:22:52 AM
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?

Likely the wrong type of reflective sheeting. They're harder to read at night than the non-reflective signs they replaced.

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.

Nice. I'll be driving through there next week. I'll keep an eye out.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 05, 2016, 07:08:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on May 05, 2016, 01:30:04 PM
It honestly looks like the letters on the clearview signs aren't reflective at all.  I have no idea why they did that.

It's amazing the lengths the Thruway will go to keep signs that are past their prime still in service.  New posts, lighting... as much as I like that generation of signage, it seems like it would be cheaper to just replace the signs to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on May 05, 2016, 02:44:38 PM
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.

All of the Emergency Detour signs I've seen have a similar issue with the detour designation letter not reflective at all. Maybe the NYSTA got some bargain basement tape or something.

There are some older signs in Buffalo that are peeling pretty good but still more reflective than the new signs. Definitely a step backwards.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 05, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
There are some older signs in Buffalo that are peeling pretty good but still more reflective than the new signs. Definitely a step backwards.

The new signs replaced most of those. The old signs that weren't replaced are between 54 and the Lackawanna toll plaza, some of which are being replaced as part of a NYSDOT contract.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mrsman on May 15, 2016, 08:09:59 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: odditude on May 15, 2016, 01:54:09 PM
It would be nice if the customary units were redefined as being more standard.

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.
bakers around the world would crucify you.

baking is as much science as it is art; correct proportions of ingredients are critical.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Michael on May 23, 2016, 11:00:45 AM
I'm currently visiting a friend who recently moved to Ohio.  While were were driving last night, I saw Clearview on this church (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5579755,-83.4999066,3a,9.4y,222.34h,91.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG158Zn_RotEIMAphrATaZA!2e0).  It's hard to see since I had to zoom in from the far side of the expressway.  I find it funny that the church is called Mainstreet Church and they use a road sign font on their sign.  I was too busy looking at the building itself, so I didn't notice the sign closer to the road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5579784,-83.5002095,3a,9.4y,193.37h,90.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8bA8PyXnNCBogIThtLPbQA!2e0) also uses Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on May 25, 2016, 08:40:27 PM
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?   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 26, 2016, 01:53:39 AM
I wonder if that travel-time sign was actually fabricated in a VDOT shop and installed by state forces.

On the contracting side of things, the aircraft carrier has not yet been turned around.  UPC 105823, an I-81 signs replacement that had its bid opening shortly before last May 5, still has primary destination legend in Clearview, though UPC 709 (which looks to me like an off-system City of Roanoke job) has street blades in mixed-case FHWA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2016, 10:38:22 AM
(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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on May 26, 2016, 10:47:20 AM
(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.
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.
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2016, 04:31:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 26, 2016, 05:40:46 PM
After accumulating over 50,000 pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets, I have come to realize that plan sheets rarely get into the minutiae of route marker design.  Those are typically controlled separately through standards that have their own update cycles.  How well these are followed in sign fabrication in turn is a function of the state DOT's inspection practices and criteria for acceptance or rejection of signs.  Aspects of these processes that involve exercise of discretion tend not to be written down.

Some state DOTs do incorporate some quality assurance for shields within signing plans.  For example, Iowa DOT is moving toward using three-digit guide-sign shields for three-digit routes and eliminating black borders for US and state route guide-sign shields.  Recent signing plans have included recurring sheets (not standard plan sheets per se) with dimensioned drawings for two- and three-digit shields for all three types of route; those for state and US routes show the old black-bordered design "cancelled" with a red circle and slash.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on May 26, 2016, 07:47:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 26, 2016, 09:34:57 PM

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 know VDOT was apparently interested in Enhanced E Modified.  Perhaps if the FHWA approves it (either in an interim approval and/or a future edition of the MUTCD) we could see VDOT adopt it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 27, 2016, 11:44:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on May 27, 2016, 11:55:11 AM
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)
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 28, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
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.

They could have stopped using it anytime before then, though--no one actually was forced to use it ever.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 28, 2016, 04:16:25 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on May 29, 2016, 03:13:21 PM
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)

I can understand that point of view.  Particularly considering Clearview has different weights for positive and negative contrast, while the FHWA series doesn't, and that actually sounds like one of Clearview's better ideas.  On the other hand, if the destination legend in Clearview and everything else on the sign is FHWA, I think that can look good too, but I've seen very few examples of that most-restrained usage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2016, 04:16:30 PM
Cross-posting from the NYSTA thread is this sign intended for boaters at Erie Canal Lock 13. Photo is mine:

(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7163/26711508483_44ab7ca198_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GGpsRH)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on May 29, 2016, 09:06:18 PM
(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:

(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/TEMPORARY_zpsz3um8cj1.png)

BC uses either D or E (probably E). EM has that fat look to it that isn't present in any TCH shields in BC I've seen.

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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 12:43:44 AM
(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:

Ahh, very true. Thank you for pointing that out. Gets pretty annoying when there's three prescribed typefaces all for different uses; I do occasionally forget which ones go where.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: opspe on May 30, 2016, 01:23:09 AM
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.

I know I've seen that, but if I remember correctly it wasn't a standard guide sign, it was an information sign.  Might've been on the Upper Levels Hwy, as a temporary fixture when they were redoing the ferry terminal.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 30, 2016, 10:28:52 PM
Just to note that AHTD (Arkansas) has advertised what appears to be its first recent contract in which the signing is in the FHWA series rather than Clearview:  CA0902, a modification of the I-49/SR 72 interchange in Bentonville.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 11, 2016, 03:12:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on June 11, 2016, 11:11:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 12, 2016, 11:37:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 12, 2016, 03:36:57 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on June 16, 2016, 09:48:52 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TravelingBethelite on June 18, 2016, 09:59:26 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: AMLNet49 on June 18, 2016, 10:01:30 AM
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)

No that's FHWA/Highway Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on June 18, 2016, 10:03:15 AM
^^ No.  Those are FHWA typefaces.  Probably D and C.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on June 18, 2016, 10:59:12 AM
Yeah, several different FHWA widths:

(http://ten93.com/2016/fonts.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 18, 2016, 01:30:23 PM
Telltale sign of Clearview is the "feet" on the "l."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on June 18, 2016, 01:36:31 PM
Telltale sign of Clearview is the "feet" on the "l."

Yep!  I know very little about highway fonts, but I took one look at the lowercase Ls and knew immediately it wasn't Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on June 18, 2016, 10:53:54 PM
Yeah, several different FHWA widths:

(http://ten93.com/2016/fonts.png)

There might be some stretching going on with those signs too. And I think that might be the PixSymbols variant, which has less-uniform stroke widths than the official series, and may have had lowercase letters before 2000 when the feds added lowercase to series B — F.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on June 20, 2016, 09:03:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: paulthemapguy on June 20, 2016, 10:12:44 AM
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.

That would be perfect.  On the two posts holding the green guide signs, one post could have the "JCT-302" panels, and one post could have two panels for "(TRAIN SYMBOL) (->)."  Maybe throw this in the "redesign this!" thread heheh
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 30, 2016, 01:28:38 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on June 30, 2016, 03:14:07 PM
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)

Yeah depending on when the sign contract went out there's going to be a transition period. There's new signs on the southern end DE 1 that are in Clearview still.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on June 30, 2016, 04:04:51 PM
(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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Ian on June 30, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
(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.

I agree, but it's really the only thing the sign on the left does better. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on June 30, 2016, 04:23:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: odditude on June 30, 2016, 04:56:57 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2016, 08:06:25 PM
Nice to know that Delaware's love of Maryland-style exit tabs has faded.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2016, 08:26:24 PM
Maryland has the worst looking BGSes...It's like they took the MUTCD and chucked it out of the window.

While diverging a lot from the MUTCD can be perceived as a bad thing, that doesn't necessarily make them bad-looking. California (as just mentioned by vdeane) diverges a shit ton from the MUTCD, but, I think the uniformity is aesthetically superior, even if the occasional BGS comes across as cramped.

Another example might be British Columbia. Clearview is everywhere (almost without exception); some might call it ugly, because they've been versed to believe that Clearview is the devil's work. But, because the MOT is very consistent with its use, it ends up looking quite nice.

Anyways, my point is that not following the MUTCD does not automatically make it a bad sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on June 30, 2016, 10:33:00 PM
After seeing a butt load of Clearview in OH, MI, IL and IA on my vacation, as nicely spaced it was, I cannot wait to get back to my Highway Gothic in Colorado.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on June 30, 2016, 10:59:40 PM
Drove down I-25 and back yesterday, here in Wyoming, and I noticed several shiny new gore/exit number signs, in Clearview.  Yechh.   Not sure when they went up,  2016 year codes,  hopefully WYDOT gets the Clearview memo someday. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: brycecordry on July 01, 2016, 12:59:52 AM
This is kind of off topic, but I make almost all the signage/maps/reference material for my school. I started out using Clearview, but just recently got through changing everything to Highway Gothic. Much of the staff seem to think it looks better, to which I agree with. Someone told me that the Highway Gothic on signage looks more official (for example, telling students not to open the door for visitors, who must buzz in, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1URDteA8SWyRklycWxuVHMxV0E (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1URDteA8SWyRklycWxuVHMxV0E)). Shows that new is not always better!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2016, 01:07:07 AM
Someone told me that the Highway Gothic on signage looks more official

I could understand this. Those with a keen eye might recognize the font from "official" signs (like road signs). Just the word "Attention" in your document, just in plain black, does scream at the reader. Maybe it's the block text -- Clearview is very humanist (in other words, friendlier).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 01, 2016, 08:42:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on July 01, 2016, 10:48:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2016, 12:54:33 PM
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.

Maybe it's just being used to full-width exit tabs here in Washington, but I quite like that style. The word "exit" and the exit number are always in the same location on every sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 01, 2016, 12:59:30 PM
Wasn't there a report here or elsewhere a while back that Delaware had indeed adopted the Maryland spec as their official signage standard?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on July 01, 2016, 02:22:02 PM
Wasn't there a report here or elsewhere a while back that Delaware had indeed adopted the Maryland spec as their official signage standard?

I don't remember that precisely, but I think I have commented in the past that Delaware DOT signing plan sheets look exactly like those from MdSHA and MdTA, the only conspicuous difference among the three being the agency name in the plan sheet collar.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: marleythedog on July 24, 2016, 10:00:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wxfree on July 24, 2016, 10:19:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 24, 2016, 11:31:46 PM
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.

TxDOT was one of the agencies that funded the initial research. Of course they're going to be one of the last ones to switch back, especially because their money went into it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 25, 2016, 12:01:00 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 25, 2016, 12:07:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2016, 01:52:52 AM
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.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your comment, but the ban on dancing arrows isn't exactly the same thing. Clearview was never in the MUTCD (I'm not sure if Texas explicitly mandates the use of Clearview in their manual anyways). The FHWA might have more success in ridding the country of Clearview if they explicitly forbid the use of Clearview in the federal manual, and then made that section non-negotiable.

That said, we're talking about two fantastic typefaces. I don't think the FHWA is going to bring the banhammer down on any highway agency anytime soon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on July 25, 2016, 08:16:52 AM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on July 25, 2016, 12:53:01 PM
The past two major revisions of the TxMUTCD appeared in 2006 and 2011.  Only the 2006 manual explicitly uses the word Clearview and it appears only in the freeway/expressway guide sign chapter (Chapter 2E).  The 2011 edition, now in its second revision, is still current and does not use the word Clearview, but the vast majority of the guide sign art is copied from the 2009 federal MUTCD and all of it has its legend re-drawn to use positive-contrast Clearview in the contexts in which it is typically used in Texas, i.e., for numbers and "small caps" legend as well as primary destination legend.

I think the main obstacle to TxDOT converting back to the FHWA Series for positive-contrast guide-signing applications is a lack of standards.  It is actually the SHSD (TxDOT's SHSM equivalent), not the TxMUTCD, that has guide sign layouts--the TxMUTCD only has high-level advice--and the last edition of SHSD to use the FHWA Series for guide signs (1981, I think) specifies all-uppercase legend for conventional-road guide signs, which MUTCD 2009 no longer permits.

Notwithstanding the effective date of FHWA's withdrawal of Clearview approval, I don't think TxDOT will begin moving away from Clearview until there is a revised edition of SHSD that shows clearly how to lay out mixed-case FHWA legend on conventional-road guide signs.

There is also some past history to keep in mind.

*  FHWA did not actually grant interim approval for Clearview until September 2004.  TxDOT first put online plans sets for freeway guide sign rehabilitations that called for Clearview (sign panel detail sheets drawn using Series E Modified but with "Use Expressway Clearview instead" stamped on each sheet) as early as the August 2002 letting.  By the July 2003 letting, it was uploading construction plans sets for freeway projects that actually displayed Clearview on the sign panel detail sheets.  However, the edition of SHSD that actually showed Clearview for conventional-road guide signs did not come out until October 2003, almost a full year before FHWA interim approval was granted, and I am fairly sure it was at that point that plans sets started coming out with conventional-road guide signs that used Clearview.

*  In 2003, HCTRA was building the Westpark Tollway, its first ETC-only toll road, and approached FHWA for permission to use purple instead of green background for the guide signs.  FHWA denied it, saying that usage of purple should be confined to patches relating specifically to electronic tolling (a policy that has since been made explicit in the MUTCD).  HCTRA went ahead and erected purple-background guide signs anyway.  TxDOT was at the time also reconstructing and expanding the Katy Freeway (I-10 west of Houston) and a share of the added capacity was to be a HCTRA-administered toll freeway known as the Katy Tollway.  The signing sheets in the original TxDOT letting plans called for it to have purple-background guide signs.  This signing concept was abandoned later only when TxDOT and HCTRA agreed to brand the toll lanes as I-10 express lanes instead of as a tollway.



Owing to other demands on my time, I have had to quit separating out sign panel detail sheets for many state DOTs, including TxDOT, and am not taking on any other state DOTs that have recently started putting construction plans online, like Arizona DOT.  I do still download the plans sets for archiving and sample them on occasion.  ADOT has recently uploaded plans for a freeway guide sign replacement on Loop 101 (H834101C) and it has numerous signs that still use Clearview, as well as signs reflecting its new policy (described by Pink Jazz upthread, I think) of using Series E rather than Series E Modified for primary destination legend (yuck).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 25, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 25, 2016, 02:28:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 25, 2016, 11:56:53 PM
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.

Correct. Of course, that didn't stop NYSTA and other agencies from doing tabs and shields in Clearview. Plenty of Clearview shields in the Buffalo area. 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).

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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2016, 01:35:53 AM
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).

That looks like something straight out of British Columbia. The arrow is a little different and the sign is round, but other than those things, it's a dead-ringer.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on July 26, 2016, 08:21:30 AM

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.

The NYSTA has definitely switched back to FHWA. Any Clearview signs installed this late in the game were already manufactured before the change took place. I have confirmation in an email that they have stopped using Clearview. Interestingly, I believe the decision was made before the mandate came down in February as the Thruway Authority received a number of complaints about the new Clearview signs along the mainline in Buffalo (and I only sent them one email on the subject).  I've been told some of those signs are being replaced in upcoming construction projects using FHWA lettering.

Edit: fixed a couple of typos
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: paulthemapguy on July 26, 2016, 09:52:14 AM
Overall, whatever backlogged signs sitting in agencies' sign shops will still most likely be installed, because they aren't going to waste money by scrapping what they've already made.  If anything, the timing of the switch from Clearview back to FHWA might show just how much signage an agency leaves on their backlog before actual installation.  Or how slow an agency is at keeping up with the latest news...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 26, 2016, 10:03:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on July 26, 2016, 10:09:01 AM
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.

I know this is slightly off topic now, but is this what you are referring to when you speak of "dancing arrows" I just want to be sure, such as this spot at Pearson Airport

(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g313/MrSG-1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsdyuv2240.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MisterSG1 on July 26, 2016, 10:14:32 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wxfree on July 28, 2016, 12:59:52 AM
Reading the current Forum Status thread, I learned about the different theme options.  I'm replying here so to stay on-topic.  Years ago, I'd explore all of the options and pages of a web site, but I stopped doing that because it usually isn't very interesting.  I'd never looked at the different themes to see the Clearview option.  I'd never heard of or thought about sign typefaces until I started on this forum.  Here in Texas, I didn't notice the change when it happened.  My road interest never included that particular facet.  I always thought it was rather silly how anti-Clearview some people were.  To me it's just another way of writing all the same letters and the fact that it's new shouldn't be taken to mean it's bad (which happens a lot, especially with older people).  But seeing a full page of text in Clearview makes me realize, Holy Cow! it's ugly.  I guess a few words on a sign wasn't enough to make that impression, but that preview page did it.

I'm a new anti-Clearview convert.  Obviously, I'm addressing the aesthetics and not matters of legibility, but if legibility benefits from going back to older styles, I'm all for doing it as soon as possible.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2016, 09:34:34 AM
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)

Hahaha

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 7/8 on July 28, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
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

The fact that the sign beside it is in FHWA makes it that much better :)

Kitchener-Waterloo tends to use Clearview on street blades, especially the big ones beside traffic lights (like the first photo below):

(http://i.imgur.com/qlGL6MG.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/uf9UgJg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/2YLU0JA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 7/8 on July 28, 2016, 12:59:07 PM
I'm not sure if there's a better thread to put this in (I tried searching), but I figured the people reading this thread know their fonts :)

Do you know what fonts these two signs are?

Pinery Trail and Springwater Dr, Waterloo. This font is quite common for residential streets, though newer subdivisions are using Clearview, shown in my previous post.
(http://i.imgur.com/fiANME6.jpg)

And this sign at Waterloo City Hall
(http://i.imgur.com/tuXNq5P.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 28, 2016, 03:06:07 PM
The first one is Helvetica Bold.

The second is FHWA Series D that has been horizontally compressed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 28, 2016, 06:20:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on July 28, 2016, 06:39:40 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on July 28, 2016, 07:06:17 PM
Weird how the shield on the right uses Series B, the one on the left uses Series D. Gotta love (lack) of consistency.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: odditude on July 28, 2016, 07:18:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 29, 2016, 12:06:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on July 29, 2016, 12:37:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 29, 2016, 01:17:14 PM
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.
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. 

My main beef with using Series B is that its narrowness makes it tougher to see at a distance.  While such isn't as big an issue when the 3di is the only one in the immediate area but when one has several 3dis that connect/cross each other (many major metropolitan areas have such); the readability of those B numerals can be problematic.

IIRC, the general SOP for 3-digit route numbers (regardless of shield type) used to be Series D for numbers containing at least a single 1 in them and Series C for all other 3-digit routes not containing any 1s in them.

It's worth noting that the previous 70s(?) era BGS' for this interchange with the dark green porcelain background w/button-copy lettering used Series C numerals for both 283 shields; and both numerals were of the same height (the I-283 shield was obviously a neutered one) so such has been and can be done.

Long story short, and yes this is veering way off topic, Series B numerals should not be used on I-shields.  While the Series D numerals for both 283 shields are acceptable on the new BGS'; Series C would've been a better choice for both IMHO.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 29, 2016, 02:01:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 29, 2016, 03:04:35 PM
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.

I'll take C over B any day. I was living in Columbus when ODOT switched from D to B and those looked weird. Still do.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on July 29, 2016, 10:16:58 PM
I think Series B is fine when done right. If the shield itself is narrower, and the height of the numerals has a minimum of, say, 12'', I think it works out fine. But the interstate shields were designed to not need Series B numerals, which means if you're using them, you're doing it wrong. (Compared to say, Quebec's autoroute shields, which do call for Series B digits).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2016, 11:49:49 PM
The old I-283 marker on the old sign looks much, much better than the new I-283 marker on the new Clearview sign.

End of discussion.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on July 30, 2016, 01:02:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2016, 02:19:56 AM
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?

It's easier for some states to switch back than others. J N Winkler could explain in better detail why it's not as simple as just choosing the old fonts again.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2016, 01:42:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 30, 2016, 02:28:32 PM
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.

A lot of agencies didn't change until the shift to Clearview and this is precisely why the original Clearview studies were flawed- they used old-style sheeting for FHWA and the newer stuff for Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 30, 2016, 08:14:58 PM
It looks like here in Arizona, FHWA is finally making its way back to logo signs at least in part.  The logo signs at I-10 and Baseline Road installed in May westbound have the exit tabs in FHWA, but still have the service types in Clearview.  The service types are on a removable panel, and my guess is that ADOT produced a large quantity of them in Clearview and is simply went through its remaining stock.

On the inverse, a new Food service panel in FHWA has been installed on a logo sign at Loop 101 and Baseline/Southern northbound earlier this month, added to an existing logo sign that previously only had Gas and Lodging; there wasn't enough space on the existing Food sign for the same exit so they added extra space for Food on the existing Gas/Lodging sign.

I have been noticing some new exit gore signs in FHWA as well, however, it appears that some are using Series D while others are using Series E (non-Modified).  ADOT's current standard for freeways is supposed to be Series E (non-Modified); Series D is intended for regular roads and Series C is intended for street blades.  However, ADOT permits using one series narrower for each application if sign width is an issue.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on July 30, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2016, 08:59:11 PM
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.

We didn't use the HEFT on this trip, so I can't help there.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 10:43:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on July 30, 2016, 10:46:39 PM
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.

Yep. And knowing how some states work, we could be seeing new Clearview for quite a while still.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on August 06, 2016, 01:48:30 PM
I caught another Clearview transition yesterday. U.S. 29 southbound near Columbia, Maryland approaching the MD-175 interchange. I didn't take a picture.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on August 07, 2016, 08:29:12 AM
Can I quickly state my personal opinion about the two fonts?

To me, Highway Gothic seems bland and generic. Clearview is fresh, modern and more pleasing to my eyes. However, I can't blame all you older folks who were exposed to Highway Gothic a lot longer than I've been. I do like button copy signs too.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mcmc on August 07, 2016, 07:07:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on August 07, 2016, 10:28:42 PM
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)


This is why I admired PennDOT's use of Clearview.  There were certainly SOME all-Clearview signs in the Keystone State, but for a fairly large majority of the new signs, they stuck to the mixed-case-only standard that most Clearview states ignored.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on August 07, 2016, 10:34:54 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 08, 2016, 03:22:55 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on August 08, 2016, 03:34:16 PM

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.

NYSTA has. Signs that went up this year are FHWA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on August 08, 2016, 04:03:00 PM
I can see local municipalities continuing to use Clearview on street blades for some time to come given the licensing costs (i.e. get their money's worth).  The only city near me that I know uses Clearview on its street blades is Santa Clara.  I should point out that while most cities use FHWA in one form or another (typically Series C or D), there's a fair number using other fonts like Impact and Bookman.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on August 08, 2016, 08:26:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on August 08, 2016, 08:57:11 PM
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.

This may help a bit. I made these very simple drawings to help people with common letters between FHWA and Clearview.

(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Font%20Differences%201_zpsiv9qrmwy.png) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/slik_sh00ter/media/Font%20Differences%201_zpsiv9qrmwy.png.html)

(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Font%20Differences%203_zpsitrweqn1.png) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/slik_sh00ter/media/Font%20Differences%203_zpsitrweqn1.png.html)

(http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b551/slik_sh00ter/Font%20Differences%202_zpscn1yufe1.png) (http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/slik_sh00ter/media/Font%20Differences%202_zpscn1yufe1.png.html)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 7/8 on August 08, 2016, 09:16:36 PM
^ This a good illustration, thanks SignGeek101! I find the tall x-height of Clearview a useful way of distinguishing between the two.

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 didn't know the difference either before joining this forum. I've learned a lot here :)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 08, 2016, 09:48:06 PM
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on August 08, 2016, 10:02:06 PM
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.

huh
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2016, 10:11:23 PM
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.

I think you mean "humanist". As in "friendlier".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2016, 10:14:56 PM
Yep, as you can see, Clearview has a more feminine appearance.

Is that because SignGeek101 is keeping us abreast of the differences?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on August 09, 2016, 10:42:03 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 18, 2016, 04:27:28 PM
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)
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.

A similar move was done over a decade ago for the westbound BGS' for the Exit 286/US 222 interchange (Lancaster replaced Ephrata); the eastbound BGS' remained as they were.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 24, 2016, 11:34:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 24, 2016, 11:38:54 PM
That sort of sloppiness can happen irrespective of whatever font is chosen. I drive past a construction speed limit ahead sign every day that has a Series E "4" and Clearview "5".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: swbrotha100 on August 25, 2016, 01:41:16 PM
To me, the Highway Gothic numbers look a LOT better than the Clearview numbers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 25, 2016, 02:38:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on August 26, 2016, 11:49:20 PM
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.

I noticed the same back when I was there earlier this year. Particularly the 101, east side, and 51, north end. Had some issues with arrows as well as fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 12, 2016, 08:54:03 AM
Saw some replacement D1 (LGS) assemblies along US 1 southbound at the PA 352 interchange near the former-Granite Run Mall.  No Clearview fonts at all; just mixed-cased Series C for 2 of the signs and mixed-case Series D for the other (Chester 5) sign above the SOUTH 352 trailblazer assembly.

So some newer PennDOT installations are indeed no longer using the Clearview font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 17, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
According to this article:
http://www.vnews.com/Vermont-Highway-Sign-Updates-Caught-Up-in-Font-Twist-4763590

In Vermont, the I-89 project, ongoing since April, will be the last by VTrans to use Clearview. The signs for the future I-91 project will use FHWA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 25, 2016, 02:51:31 AM
OTA seems to have not gotten the memo that Clearview is dead, since they just posted a new Clearview sign on Friday. In all-caps negative contrast, natch. And it was a panel that was too small to be contracted out (it's a TURNPIKE banner that stretches above a larger sign).

I can't complain too much, though. It replaced a banner that had Series B stretched to E width.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2016, 03:10:53 PM
The creator of Clearview has pretty much indicated that he's going to fight the revocation. I'm not sure how he's going to do that -- via a PR campaign, lobbying for legislative action or trying to get FHWA to reconsider.

And I would suspect that there will be some recalcitrant agencies that will continue to use Clearview because they invested in the proprietary font and don't want to let that investment go to waste.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on September 25, 2016, 03:23:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 25, 2016, 07:36:53 PM
I'm not surprised that the creators are pushing for some type of legal action in response to the issue.  I once suggested that there was even the potential for litigation over the issue.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2016, 08:23:36 PM
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.

Would love to see more info on this; this is the first I can remember hearing about it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on September 25, 2016, 10:27:27 PM
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:

Quote
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.

Neither provision is law (yet) but it's likely to be incorporated in the eventual transportation funding bill, along with the I-57 designation and other stuff, especially given that the House and Senate agreed to the same language on Clearview already.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 26, 2016, 01:05:07 PM
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:
Quote
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.
Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out? 

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on September 26, 2016, 01:40:17 PM
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:
Quote
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.
Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out? 

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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 26, 2016, 02:16:56 PM
What I find surprising is that while Canada is more liberal overall, when it comes to sign fonts, Canada lets the free market decide what fonts their DOTs want to use.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 26, 2016, 03:05:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 26, 2016, 03:14:06 PM
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.

I can see what you mean.  Some DOTs don't even have copies of Highway Gothic 2000 (the version with the mixed case alphabets other than Series E-Modified) since they were completely sold on Clearview.  The requirement for mixed case legend in the 2009 MUTCD exacerbated the problem of using narrower Clearview variants for this reason.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on September 26, 2016, 03:31:49 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 26, 2016, 04:38:13 PM
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).

Are you referring to plain Series E, or Series E Modified?  Plain Series E wasn't available in an official mixed case alphabet until 2000.  As for Series E Modified, remember that the whole reason for the thicker strokes was to accommodate button copy, which is no longer being used for new signage.

Note that the MUTCD does not mandate the use of Series E Modified on freeway guide signage, which is why ADOT has decided to go with plain Series E to achieve the same benefits that Clearview originally promised.  If a DOT feels like it, they are free to use mixed case Series B on freeway guide signage, which would have course be a legibility disaster.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 26, 2016, 06:57:04 PM
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:
Quote
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

Was similar consideration given (public consideration, input, etc.) given when the Clearview font first rolled out?

How could you have public input on something that doesn't exist in the field? Generally, public input is sought after something is rolled out (otherwise risking conjecture on the part of the commentators, not having actually seen the finished product IRL); if both the general public, and those responsible, approve of the change in question, then the change could be approved.

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.

Despite my general preference for Clearview (when used everywhere, like this (https://goo.gl/0EDAVf)), I agree with this statement. The problem I see here is that, as has been brought up already, states did sink a lot of time, effort, and money, into implementing Clearview. Having the FHWA suddenly yank the interim approval, out of the blue and with little time to switch "back" to Highway Gothic is, IMHO, total bullshit.

FWIW, the memo to Grays Harbor County, which was the initial "we plan on rescinding Clearview approval in the future" notice, was not sent to anyone except Grays Harbor. For all we know, us and Grays Harbor are the only ones who had any idea the FHWA was planning on switching back to Highway Gothic. The FHWA could have avoided this mess if they had sent that memo to not just Grays Harbor, but to every other Clearview-approved department, albeit with slightly different wording.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 27, 2016, 12:04:08 AM
Who would even comment in a public comment period? You would mostly get the people posting in this thread and a few uninformed people who read about it in their local newspaper's "look at this government waste!" column. The vast majority of the public is probably going to have an opinion along the lines of "what is a font?"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on September 27, 2016, 01:16:10 AM
The point of a public comment period is to ensure that the relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to weigh in on a proposed government action, even if most of the general public have no interest or expertise. Public comment is an essential step in any permanent rulemaking by a federal agency under the provisions of the Adminstrative Procedure Act of 1946.

I think the way that Congress (and the complaining states in question) sees it is that normally when FHWA grants an interim approval, it allows it to stand until the next revision of the MUTCD at which time the NRPM allows for public comment on whether the interim approval should be folded into the MUTCD. Particularly for an interim approval that was widely used (unlike a traffic control device that was only used in a limited number of locations in one city or state), they would argue that a simple memo shutting down the authority to use Clearview without any formal input from DOTs is insufficient.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 27, 2016, 09:05:05 AM
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).

D Georgia is going away, and I have never seen any actual proof that that was approved experimentation.

In its Clearview FAQ and later in the Clearview revocation notice, FHWA did note that it had been found that the more condensed Clearview typefaces (whose use was permitted under the terms of the original interim approval memorandum) had shown legibility performance inferior to the FHWA series.  I don't know if this research was published, or if the basis of comparison was the post-2004 mixed-case series.

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 don't support Canadian-style free choice of typefaces.  Canada is very unusual in permitting this, and also in having large provinces and territories with very few large cities that straddle borders where a floating commuter population has to deal with multiple different signing systems.

Instead, what I would advocate is greater conservatism in guide sign design, including a requirement that if a mixed-case typeface is used for any application, it must be Series E Modified.  I am not aware that the relative legibility of the new mixed-case FHWA series has ever been studied, although that of mixed-case Series E Modified and the original uppercase-only series has been, and nominal unit legibilities are available for them that can be used in design (but are not actually quoted in any reference that is used on a daily basis by traffic sign designers in the US).

In the rulemaking process for the 2003 MUTCD, I suggested that FHWA should require Series E Modified for mixed-case just to establish a legibility floor, and FHWA rejected this suggestion on the basis that agencies could be trusted to exercise appropriate engineering judgment.  I don't think that position is tenable given that I have had to go to a traffic manual from New Zealand (in my personal library) to look up the unit legibilities that are available.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 27, 2016, 11:01:49 AM
^

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 27, 2016, 11:09:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 27, 2016, 11:33:56 AM
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.

ADOT is restricting Series B to width-constrained street name signs, which otherwise will use Series C for typical installs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on September 27, 2016, 07:13:07 PM
^

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.

NYSDOT has been very uneven with their mixed case sign implementations on non-freeway roads.  Some regions are using E(m) for even small signs that contain only the name of a hamlet while other regions are using mixed case Series D.  The mixed case Series D seems more legible than E(m) in these instances, with the original Series D (like Georgia's Series D but with dots on the i and j) being more legible than the Series D seen in the latest MUTCD.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on September 27, 2016, 10:47:03 PM
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)?

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.

I don't know exactly how far back it goes, but Wisconsin still spec's Series E for most non-freeway signs that don't have lateral space issues: WisDOT spec example (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/signplate/aseries/A11-11F.pdf)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 27, 2016, 11:24:18 PM
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)?

This is exactly what ADOT is currently doing for its freeway guide signs, as well as Series D for guide signs on regular roads and Series C for street blades.  The MUTCD does not mandate a specific variant of FHWA font for guide signs, and it is open to any DOT to even use mixed case Series B on freeway guide signs, even though it would be a legibility disaster. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 28, 2016, 08:50:43 AM
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) 

The thinner-stroked lettering appeared more crisp; especially with the shorter lower-case letters.

That's probably one reason right there that the Clearview font is more legible than Series E(M); the stroke-width of the letters is narrower.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
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) 

I think that's referred to as Enhanced E(M).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on October 21, 2016, 12:08:43 AM
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).

Proving it's worse isn't necessary.  The goal is not to allow equal alternatives.  If Clearview isn't demonstrably better, then its interim approval should go.  You don't have to show that it's worse to get rid of it; you just need to show that it isn't an improvement. 

That and the butcher job that many states did implementing Clearview make it clear that it just won't be done right.  Ohio still has it appearing on signs, possibly ones that were designed before the discontinuation of the interim approval but maybe not, and the same problems keep showing up with all-caps, numerals, narrow variants in all-caps on signs that don't call for Clearview at all.  If people aren't going to use it RIGHT, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it at all.  What part of "mixed-case destination legend" has been so hard for agencies to understand??
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2016, 04:17:26 PM
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:

Quote
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on October 26, 2016, 04:22:06 PM
Finally.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on October 26, 2016, 05:59:23 PM
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:

Quote
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.



It's part of the "but it's new!" mentality so prevalent in the United States these days. Who cares about mediocre quality? Standards? Who needs them. I'm not surprised. Money speaks. Loudly. Meeker and Associates must have made a political donation from all the cash they've grabbed from state DOTs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 26, 2016, 08:04:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on October 26, 2016, 09:35:43 PM
Money talks. I guarantee that someone has a lobbyist in Washington. At least NYSTA won't be switching back regardless of the outcome.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 26, 2016, 10:42:12 PM
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.

AASHTO is the state transportation agencies. Apparently enough of them have bought Clearview (which must be outrageously expensive) and don't want to be stuck with the expense. They have every right to lobby FHWA -- and everyone knows that I think states should be able to use any font they want and this is typical federal overreach.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on October 27, 2016, 08:26:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on October 27, 2016, 09:05:03 AM
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 not necessarily ill-educated workers...sometimes it's the tools they're given. For instance, before WisDOT switched to SignCAD, all of their signs were created in MicroStation, with words being formed as a series of letter cells and not interactive type. (That's why the slash on the lowercase 'd' and 'b' did not go the same way...someone mirrored the cell of the other letter and called it good.) Each letter was individually placed (in some of the older plan sets, you can see the reference locator dot for letters that do not have a straight line as part of the left side. Adjusting kerning in that instance is a huge PITA and time consuming. And sometimes, it's not the fault of the designer, but rather, laziness on the part of the sign fabricator.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on October 27, 2016, 09:38:17 AM
Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2016, 09:42:40 AM
New York's issue was not only bad design, but whoever wrote the sign specs had the wrong types of reflective sheeting. The background of some of these signs was more reflective than the letters, which is not good.

Then there's the issue of Clearview shields, which is another problem altogether.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on October 27, 2016, 11:55:10 AM
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.

We went 50 years without having all these spacing and kerning and padding issues when engineers did everything by hand.  Clearview isn't going to fix sloppy practices on mediocre programs by interns who think designing a road sign is the same as creating a beer blast poster in MS Paint.  Further study during the interim approval showed that there was no significant advantage to using Clearview over Series E(m) and that the other Clearview letters did worse than their FHWA Series D, etc. counterparts. The FHWA and the states should be focused on consistency, applicable standards and using the newer Series E(em), which used the Series E lettering with Series E(m) spacing.

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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
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.

This. Compare to a bunch of the major safety innovations. Work is generally either public-domain or patents are unenforced.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 27, 2016, 12:55:46 PM
The cost issue alone would have been enough for me to deny interim approval.  I'm amazed states spent the money on the thing.  It strikes me as a bunch of wasted money regardless of approval status (I can understand Quebec, because the FHWA fonts don't have accents, so those had to be done manually).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on October 27, 2016, 01:35:43 PM

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!


This!!  If it wasn't government overreach in the first place to allow Clearview on an INTERIM BASIS (always understood that the interim approval was not permanent and that continued testing would be required), then it's not government overreach to discontinue the allowance of it.  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. 

Ohio continues to post signs with HWY PATROL, HOSPITAL, EXIT, NEXT RIGHT, EXIT 1 MILE, EAST, SOUTH, etc. in all-caps Clearview with numerals in Clearview too--fortunately except shields usually.  Delaware used to have really good looking signage until they decided to copy Maryland's crazy Clearview with enormous destinations, tiny exit numbers, wide spaces in odd places--all enabled by Clearview and probably would never have happened without it.  There needs to be consistency across state lines and from road to road.  The madness must stop!

Had Meeker and Associates actively worked to make sure users use Clearview right, they'd have a leg to stand on.  Instead, they sold it and stand by it as a cure-all for a disease that it doesn't treat and in fact makes worse (negative contrast, for example).  The harder they push, the harder I hope FHWA pushes back.  It is doubtless political lobbying by Meeker and Associates that is in play because their cash cow isn't what it was cracked up to be.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 27, 2016, 02:27:32 PM
How often are interim approvals closed without MUTCD implementation?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2016, 02:34:52 PM
How often are interim approvals closed without MUTCD implementation?

MUTCD website only lists IAs since the 2003 MUTCD. All but two of the pre-2009 MUTCD ones were put into that edition or one of its revisions. Granted, most of those IAs were pretty trivial in relation to Clearview, such as new logos and the retroreflective borders. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons remains active (issued in 2008).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 27, 2016, 04:06:29 PM
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.

Actually, the 2004 interim approval memorandum allowed use of any of the Clearview W series (intended for positive-contrast usage) in any positive-contrast guide-sign application--I would argue this technically extended to digits in Interstate shields, though clearly such usage was far from desirable.  The additional restrictions outlined above (as well as the recommendation to use 5-W and 5-W-R only) didn't come into being until the Clearview FAQ several years later, which was non-regulatory.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 27, 2016, 05:31:02 PM
FHWA fonts are less likely to be involved in a botched design because they're easier to work with. The original, squared-off BPR fonts were supposedly designed so that even an illiterate person could paint a sign by just following the pattern. The FHWA fonts we have today were adapted from the BPR fonts. As a result, they don't incorporate a lot of fancy tricks that professionally-used typefaces do. You can do a decent job of kerning just by setting the letters apart a fixed width (barring any character pairs that would obviously need kerning adjustments, like 'Av').

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 27, 2016, 07:35:27 PM
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.

If memory serves, Clearview lowercase letters basically divide into three groups according to ascender/dot height:  capital letter height exactly (t), slightly higher than capital letter height (l, d, h), and much higher than capital letter height (i).  The CorelDRAW script I used to position legend vertically basically assumed that each line of text was a geometric object in its own right and positioned one line in relation to the other such that the closest points were the required vertical padding distance apart.  With Series E Modified this worked fine as long as there was at least one capital letter per line and there were no descenders.  With Clearview I couldn't afford any letters with ascenders other than t.  However, this constraint did not apply if I composed legend blocks as multi-line paragraphs, since the correct spacing can easily be specified (regardless of ascender/descender height) simply by setting interline spacing at the appropriate multiplier of the line height that is specified in the font file.

In any case, I don't know if the ascender issue actually causes problems in commercial traffic sign design packages, as opposed to the consumer-grade vector graphics packages (like CorelDRAW, Illustrator, or Inkscape) that we have been using to prepare sign mockups.  In the thousands of sign panel detail sheets I collected while the Clearview interim approval was in effect, I hardly ever saw line alignment faults that clearly resulted from the presence or absence of ascenders.  By far the most common was to use too-small lowercase letters, apparently resulting from a misunderstanding of the traditional "X UC, (3/4)X LC" formulation (which is, or at any rate should be, precisely the same as just "X UC" when the typeface is mixed-case and the lowercase letters have loop height equal to 3/4 capital letter height, which has been baked into Series E Modified since the late 1950's and is now part of the other FHWA series).

The basic rule of thumb for space padding on freeway guide signs, which tells you 90% of what you need to know to create realistic mockups, is capital letter height horizontally, lowercase loop height vertically.  The most absurd part of the Clearview FAQ, which (thankfully) few if any agencies followed, was to extend this to Clearview and say interline spacing should be at the actual lowercase loop height of Clearview (84% capital letter height) rather than the traditional 75%.  Clearview was designed for interline spacing at 75% capital letter height ("Drop-in replacement for Series E Modified, so we don't have to increase sign panel size appreciably" was the key element in the design brief for it).

I have seen some Clearview plans sets (invariably drawn up in SignCAD) with kerning issues, but there I am not sure what is going on.  My understanding is that, like the current mixed-case versions of the FHWA series, Clearview is tilable, with few if any letter pairs requiring kerning adjustments.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 20, 2016, 05:57:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on December 22, 2016, 04:35:01 PM
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, personally, am glad to see Clearview go bye-bye *however* if local agencies want to keep it around for use on small signs like street blades, I'm OK with that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 23, 2016, 02:42:02 AM
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."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JMoses24 on December 24, 2016, 11:05:20 AM
Ohio appears to be continuing new Clearview installs. New exit signage on I-75 between Harrison Avenue and Interstate 74 is in Clearview. Probably was ordered well in advance of the IA being revoked.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: marleythedog on December 26, 2016, 02:41:44 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 28, 2016, 01:26:35 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on December 28, 2016, 01:50:42 PM

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.

And if *that* happens, I would not be surprised if the judge tossed the case.

What would the argument be?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2016, 04:47:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on December 28, 2016, 08:38:25 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on December 28, 2016, 08:44:02 PM
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?

This. As we have seen from further studies, the initial studies in favor of Clearview were generally biased. Reflective Clearview results were compared to nonreflective FHWA. Not an equal comparison. If proper testing was performed, we would have known that Clearview performed WORSE than FHWA fonts under all conditions other than positive-contrast mixed-case before states started to purchase licenses and erect signs. Long story short, the data shows that, overall, Clearview is worse than the FHWA fonts when it comes to legibility if conditions are equal (which was not the case in the initial studies).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on December 28, 2016, 09:28:04 PM
For what it's worth, in most court challenges to federal agency rulemaking actions, the standard of review is whether the agency acted in an "arbitrary and capricious manner." It's a very deferential standard of review that makes it hard to overturn an agency action. Of course there are exceptions to that principle, but I'd be surprised if the Clearview matter fell within any of the exceptions because it wasn't even really a formal rulemaking procedure. I'm not overly familiar with the whole administrative process used with the interim approvals versus any more formal FHWA action, but I've gotten the distinct impression the interim approval is something less than a full notice-and-comment action. I strongly expect any court would apply an extremely deferential standard of review as a result.

(Full disclosure: As I've said in prior threads, I like Clearview as well because I find it a lot easier to read from a distance, especially at night.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2016, 11:47:37 PM
Alright, let's just be hypothetical. Let's pretend it's 2009. What do we know about Clearview? We know its been approved, in the interim, for about five years now. Regardless of whether or not the studies are flawed (I believe this was something discovered only in the last few years), what do they say? Do they show Clearview to be superior, or not?

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 29, 2016, 03:41:27 AM
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:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 29, 2016, 12:38:54 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 08:29:04 PM
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.

This I already know. But the agencies who would like to continue using Clearview are fighting against, what is in their opinion, an inappropriate use of Clause F. No one's doubting that the FHWA has the absolute authority to do what they did. But individual agencies do have the right to disagree with the use of Clause F for ending Clearview's IA. The way I see it, all they have to prove is that the FHWA's final ruling was without merit. They'll have to prove that any recent studies showing Clearview to be worse are total rubbish and not to be believed; how'd they'd manage that, I'm not sure -- my opinion is still that agencies are only fighting against the ending of Clearview because of money lost, but I'm not sure that's an argument if Clause F is to be taken literally.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on December 29, 2016, 08:30:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 08:35:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 08:42:17 PM
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.

There's more money invested than just into the Interim Approval "device". JN Winkler has a better idea of how this works than I do, but from what I've read, some states that switched to Clearview changed the way they build their signs, created new plans for signs, maybe changed the program for sign creation and created new algorithms for text placement, etc. 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 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. Both of those things being discontinued would result in money going up in flames immediately, especially if an area invested more heavily into the IA than another (either by switching signs to Clearview ahead of schedule, or switching five-section signals to FYAs before signal replacement was necessary).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 29, 2016, 09:20:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Revive 755 on December 29, 2016, 09:56:07 PM
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 comparison does not work.  Flashing yellow arrows fully made it into the 2009 MUTCD, while Clearview, which had the interim approval granted back in 2004, remained as an interim approval.  It is a bit harder to dump a device once it is fully into the MUTCD.  A similar situation may exist with rectangular rapid flashing beacons, which are also still at the interim approval level, and may have not been adopted into the 2009 MUTCD due to FHWA wanting more studies with them.

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).

There are numerous agencies that would disagree with you on the second point, as there were and still are many five-section heads in front of left turn lanes.  As for the first part:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D13 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm#section4D13)
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD 4D.13 Paragraph 07
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.

Also note that in the same section, having a five section head in front of a left turn lane is only guidance, not standard.

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.

There is no prohibition on having a mast arm much longer than necessary if the farthest left head ends up being shifted to the right.  There's also an assumption that many agencies would not go back to having five-section heads in front of the turn lane.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 10:08:28 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on December 29, 2016, 10:19:58 PM
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.

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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 10:21:56 PM
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.

Gotcha. In which case, I agree with HB. Highway Gothic is an ancient font that desperately needs work. Unless some serious work is put into it, states should be allowed to, at the very least, continue using Clearview, but also if interested, study/develop other typefaces. I genuinely don't see the benefit in having one, nationwide typeface. So many other things vary from state-to-state. The only important thing is legibility.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 29, 2016, 10:25:32 PM
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.)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2016, 10:42:41 PM
The comparison does not work.  Flashing yellow arrows fully made it into the 2009 MUTCD

I was not aware of this. I was under the impression that it was still an interim approval, and was likely to be implemented into the next MUTCD, as a total replacement (in most circumstances) for the five section signal. I really wish the FHWA wouldn't list former interim approvals for historic purposes. Confused me (though my fault -- I wasn't reading close enough).

Anyways, I have no intent of responding to the rest of your post (it's no longer relevant, though it was a good bit of info).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 29, 2016, 11:27:42 PM
I'm holding out some hope perhaps some time in the future typefaces for traffic sign use will be properly modernized, as well as the software used to design them.

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.

Clearview was a move forward in some respects, but I don't think it moved forward far enough. The old FHWA Series Gothic character set is laughably limited and primitive. 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.

Sign making applications have been slow to adopt all of the features in OpenType font technology. Even CorelDRAW lagged badly in this regard, until just a few years ago when it finally offered full support at version X6 in 2012. Adobe Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop fully implemented OpenType capability back in 2000.

Regarding design difficulties with Clearview, it all depends on app being used. Most sign industry specific design applications can accurately size, position and align letters according to cap letter height. I've done it with CASmate and FlexiSign Pro. It's also relatively easy to do with CorelDRAW.

In an app like CorelDRAW or Illustrator you can't type out an entire mixed case legend and then set an inch-based size. The cap letter heights won't be accurate. Portions of letters will dip below the baseline and rise above the cap height line. This is true of both Series Gothic and Clearview, but moreso with Clearview and some of its curvy cap letters. In CorelDRAW type out a letter "E" and set it at the desired size. You can position, align or do whatever with that object. Or you can copy its size attributes to other type objects. CorelDRAW will allow text objects to be aligned according to baseline. Anyway, if you know what you're doing it is very easy to properly and quickly compose a traffic sign layout regardless if it's Clearview or Series Gothic.

Adobe Illustrator is far more cumbersome to use for sign design because the application is still really only geared for design grids on a printed page. Type objects are contained in rectangular blocks. You can still get type objects set at an accurate inches-based size and positioned correctly, but the process involves more steps than in CorelDRAW. I've made numerous requests to Adobe in their Illustrator feature request forum to remedy this.

Regarding other typefaces, I think the federal government and state agencies should keep limits in place on what typefaces are used on traffic signs. Different typefaces have different levels of legibility. Most typefaces are far too flamboyant to be used on what is supposed to be a utilitarian style sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2016, 11:45:26 PM
On the FYA topic, just because it was mentioned, FYAs were included in the 2009 MUTCD, while four-sections with bimodal arrows (common in New York, for example) were not. The three-section FYA with a bimodal remains an interim approval.

Nothing has been made public as far as whether five-sections will be removed from the manual. I can ask around at TRB, but I don't think they'll be going anywhere in the near future. Massachusetts has announced plans to replace all state-owned five-section signals with FYAs and NYSDOT has been moving toward replacing left-turn doghouses with FYAs, but the latter still has left-turn doghouses in new contracts.

As far as the FHWA listing old interim approvals, they keep IAs that were issued under the previous edition up for historical purposes. Basically, they're kept up there so agencies know to refer to the manual's guidance instead of the IA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 30, 2016, 04:36:58 PM


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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on December 30, 2016, 05:08:41 PM


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.

 :clap:   :clap:

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. Modify all the stroke widths and/or modify the letters a, e, and o. Find a better way to delineate L from l from I (for the few times context clues don't tell you which letter is meant). Design any other characters that happen to be missing. Problem solved without reinventing the wheel, in addition to probably a whole lot less time/money/heartache.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 30, 2016, 06:53:14 PM
Apparently you both missed this massive point in Bobby's post. It's more than just the age of the font.

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.

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:

(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/04/1600x800/landscape-1454020049-gettyimages-488945174.jpg)

I keep reading that the FHWA letters are primitive. This is mind boggling to me.

Well, since the Highway Gothic font was first developed, it hasn't kept up with the changes being asked of it. That sort of puts it in the "primitive" category, especially when you compare it to a newer typeface, which might have dozens of different fonts within it.

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.

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.

You have to be kidding me. Name one thing in the MUTCD that was changed without reason.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 08:05:07 PM
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 get what you're saying.  But this is not a house.  Why not explore whether scrapping the FHWA series and starting from the ground up can make for something even better?  We've discussed how Clearview has made things difficult–but that's a problem with Clearview, not necessarily trying something new in general.  If something new were even more legible than a modified FHWA series and just as easy to work with in the design process, then how would that not be a win-win?

Or how about this?  If you don't like the design/function of your bicycle, you could install better derailleurs, a new cassette for optimal gear ratios, less-awkward pedal clips, more appropriate tires, a more comfortable saddle, and your preferred shifting system.  And if you really dig working on bicycles or have an emotional connection to that particular bicycle, that's probably what you'll do.  But maybe it's worth looking into getting a whole new bike.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 08:06:38 PM

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:

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...
True, there are no unicode symbols in the font - but there is not too much demand for those within US as well.

As for graphic design.. My impression is that many designers are willing to sacrifice functionality for better appearance, which is a bad approach for the road....
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 30, 2016, 10:32:11 PM


You have to be kidding me. Name one thing in the MUTCD that was changed without reason.

Why do we need all of these extra characters for the FHWA letters? Abbreviations aren't suppose to have a period. There are a handful at most of words that have natural accent marks in them. There is no movement to adopt multilingual signs on the highways of the U.S.

Ask any motorist why the exit tab on a guide sign is shoved to the right hand side. Heck, there many installations where the installers didn't know why the exit tab is on the right side and put it on the left.

The purpose of a sign is to convey a message as accurately and as legibly as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. It's not suppose to be pretty. It's not suppose to have attractive fonts. It's suppose to have LEGIBLE fonts and a layout that conveys the message as quickly as possible. Cluttering up signs with multiple fonts and an overabundance of colors and graphics just slows down comprehension time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 31, 2016, 02:50:03 AM
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:

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.

Of course, that has to be set manually and doesn't happen if you just use the small-caps function in X software program, but it's there.

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.

I've kind of come to the same conclusion. I think that perhaps the best approach would be to have an engineer and a graphic designer working in tandem, with the designer laying the sign out to be visually appealing and the engineer checking compliance with legibility requirements and such. A graphic designer may not fully grasp all of the nuances of translating a graphic design to the "real world", and an engineer probably doesn't grasp the rules of design nearly as well.

I imagine this sort of thing happens in commercial graphics all the time as well. I'm sure there's instances where designers come up with really neat looking stuff that looks great in Illustrator but is totally impractical to actually print. Anyone who uses consumer software has probably run into a design that looks really slick but is a total chore to actually use for getting anything useful.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 31, 2016, 05:36:04 AM
Allocating government resources to develop a FHWA Series version of the Cherokee alphabet would be a questionable use of public funds. Cherokee signage is a novelty that mostly serves a promotional purpose, not a serious wayfinding tool. It would be a nice gift to the Cherokee Nation by a private designer or hobbyist, or something that might the Cherokee Nation or city of Tahlequah could develop. But to have the FHWA develop it and include it in the MUTCD would probably be something that would end up on one of those "government boondoggle" lists.

(On the side note of Native American languages on road signs: as far as I know this is the only Chickasaw road sign that has been posted. You'd think there would be more, considering the Chickasaw Nation's tendencies toward promoting their culture, and the fact that their language is written entirely in the Latin alphabet. At the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur.)
(http://i.imgur.com/dyjfduU.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 31, 2016, 10:19:28 PM
It shouldn't take a graphic designer nor an engineer to lay out a sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on January 01, 2017, 01:24:33 PM
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.)



Heh. Take a look at the fake sign at the link below (it's there precisely to make a point):

http://www.typographyforlawyers.com/what-is-typography.html
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2017, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads
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, whether they're for commercial businesses or for things like traffic control, should have proper visual design. If they're poorly designed they visually pollute the outdoor landscape. A lot of people designing signs (including customers making design choices) don't realize the responsibility they have to the outdoor environment.

Signs stand there in the outdoor environment either looking good or looking terrible for years. You can throw a badly designed piece of junk mail or some other printed material in the trash and forget about it. Poorly designed graphics on TV or the Internet don't stick around for long. But signs can potentially stand in one place for decades getting viewed by drivers countless numbers of times. They should be something better than the equivalent of a giant turd on a big metal stick.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

I have never seen a FHWA Series Gothic font file that had native small capital characters in its character table, much less the other important features it is missing. I've opened these font files in Font Lab Studio and found only a very basic character set.

Next, the hack of proportionately scaling capital letters up or down to fake a small caps look just does not work. If you scale down the letter size the width of the letter stroke also proportionately scales down as well. It does not remain the same stroke width. The only way to do small capitals correctly is using a typeface that has such characters specifically designed for that purpose.

Some people might think a font has small capitals in it by virtue of quick and dirty small cap functions in computer software. Unless a font has native small capitals drawn in its character set the software will just do the fake small caps scaling hack. The hack never comes out looking right. Faking small caps isn't as bad as some other typographical sins like writing in call caps using a script typeface or squeezing/stretching type to fit a certain space. But it's still not professional.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: adventurernumber1 on January 02, 2017, 12:06:36 AM
I'd say my stance has changed slightly on the Highway Gothic vs. Clearview debate over the past few years as I have learned more about it. Way earlier in this thread I think I had a more neutral stance, saying that I'm fine with both fonts and didn't exactly have a preference. Nowadays, my stance isn't that different, but now there is no doubt that I prefer the FHWA font. However, I don't hate Clearview so much that I wish a slow and painful death for its creator. I will sincerely say I do find it sad to see Clearview becoming the dominant font in many states, and used sporadically in others. I don't hate Clearview with a burning passion - I can tolerate it - but I prefer Highway Gothic. And with that said, I am glad my home state of Georgia is still a FHWA state.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2017, 12:59:31 AM
I, for one, cannot stand Georgia's big green signs on Interstate highways. Most states use Series E/M for sign legends, or perhaps Series E. Georgia had to go and be different, using a modified version of Series C. I hate how that looks. It's easy to see why Georgia DOT went with that policy: it's cheaper; sign backgrounds don't have to be nearly as wide as they would be using full width letters from Series D, E & E/M. The downside is Georgia's BGS's are not nearly as legible as they should be. There are penalties to pay in using a condensed-width typeface.

There are plenty of other practices I dislike in Interstate highway sign designs. I hate how California embeds exit tabs into the main panel of a BGS. That design practice only looks stupid. And so many of the BGS's in California are poorly composed. For a state that defined a lot of freeway innovations the signs they put on the freeways are pretty lousy.

People tee off on the Clearview typeface as if that's the main culprit in what's visually wrong with Interstate highway signs. The fault really isn't with the font, it's with people not knowing or not caring what they're doing with the font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 02, 2017, 01:15:45 AM
The fault really isn't with the font, it's with people not knowing or not caring what they're doing with the font.

Inb4 "Clearview makes it harder to design signs".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 02, 2017, 01:44:01 AM
Every single "difficulty" complaint people make about Clearview also exists in FHWA Series Gothic. Yeah, glyphs in Clearview like "B," "D," "P," and "R" have rounded tops that rise above the cap height line. Big deal. While those glyphs might be neatly squared off in FHWA Series Gothic, that typeface still has plenty of other capital letters with parts that rise above the cap height line and dip below the baseline (C, G, J, O, Q, S & U).

If you're using a sign industry specific design application, one that can set actual cap letter heights in inches, centimeters, etc. as well as position or align the letters in reference to the cap height then neither typeface poses any challenges in that regard. If you're using more mainstream software, such as CorelDRAW, to compose designs you have to use other methods. But those procedures are not difficult at all.

I design signs for a living using a growing library of typefaces. Thank God for Adobe and Typekit. That's one thing saving my company a good amount of money on font purchases (although we still buy a lot of type). For me Typekit is one of the things that really makes a $50 per month subscription to Creative Cloud worth it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JMoses24 on January 03, 2017, 12:26:06 AM
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)

This install (recent, as in this past fall) suggests Clearview is not totally dead in Ohio. I believe these were ordered prior to the Interim Approval being revoked. Photo by me, 1/1/17.
(http://i.imgur.com/xkN2RGum.jpg) (http://imgur.com/xkN2RGu)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 03, 2017, 08:08:11 PM
All of the signing contracts for those phases were signed a long time ago, well before there was any hint of Clearview's Interim Approval being revoked and put back into place. You'll see a lot more pop up along I-75 as other phases come online.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: marleythedog on January 03, 2017, 08:44:42 PM
Interestingly, the signs that just went up on I-71 at the Jeremiah Morrow Bridge are FHWA. I would've expected that contract's ink to have been well dried by the time the IA was revoked.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 04, 2017, 06:30:11 AM
^ The DOT may have issued a change order after the contract was let. They were not required to, but it may have been a policy decision at the DOT level to do so for whatever reason.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on January 05, 2017, 10:20:25 AM
The signs could have been fabricated long after. I know that the Clearview signs for the I-90/Innerbelt Bridge project were in storage for a long time (got a nice sneak peek).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 16, 2017, 09:52:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on January 16, 2017, 10:31:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2017, 10:28:29 AM

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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 10:33:17 AM

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?
Pfft.  No.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2017, 01:11:40 PM
Considering this process of improving traffic sign typefaces started around 20 years ago, the powers that be probably need to go back to the drawing board and come back with font files that aren't like outdated relics from the late 1980's. Type design and technology has come a long way since then. Both the highway typeface files and industry specific software that uses them badly needs to be updated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 17, 2017, 08:54:48 PM
The powers that be don't create the typeface files. They just release the glyphs in PDF form and corporations create the actual TTF/OTF files.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 19, 2017, 10:20:43 PM
Drawing just under 100 glyphs in PDF form (presumably using Adobe Illustrator or CorelDRAW) is arguably a haphazard approach to take in designing a typeface, especially one intended to use as font software. Unless the glyphs were designed with font metrics and dimensions in mind (overall font UPM size, defined unit sizes for ascender, descender, cap height and x-height) those glyphs will not transpose into font making software correctly. It usually works better to do all the design work within an app like FontLab Studio or Glyphs. Those applications have some features that can speed up the design process compared to what can be done within Illustrator. Font Lab Studio 6 looks very promising (it's currently in public beta).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on January 19, 2017, 10:26:02 PM
They weren't intended to be used as font software, though. They were drawn in 1948 and originally specified as a series of dimensions (this is is X width, this arc is X degrees of a circle with Y radius, etc.)

The glyphs are public domain. Draw them up from the specs, or just use the existing glyphs from the PDF if you prefer. That's what the Roadgeek font creators did. Then take that, build an OTF, add all the fancy features you want, and sell them. If they're as necessary as you seem to believe, you should become exceedingly rich very quickly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 30, 2017, 04:32:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on January 30, 2017, 05:50:46 PM
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"...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
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"...

Do you have a TRB account? I wasn't able to view the paper. There was some indication that a presentation was given at the TRB conference. Any users here see it?

The only thing I can see is the summary, which seems to indicate that Clearview performed better than Highway Gothic across the board.

I'm not sure how seriously this MIT study is to be taken, but it certainly doesn't seal Clearview's fate as a useless typeface that wasted millions. As someone who very publicly likes Clearview, I'm very interested to see where this goes.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Revive 755 on January 30, 2017, 09:33:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2017, 10:08:22 PM
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.

It sounds worse, but it could be better. It's a more controlled environment. Doing studies outside isn't that great because you don't have much control over the environment (chiefly things like light levels and weather).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 30, 2017, 11:08:48 PM
Do you have a TRB account? I wasn't able to view the paper.

Paper (probably a prepress version) is here:

http://docs.trb.org/prp/17-04920.pdf

There is a line which suggests that Series E Modified would have done as well as Clearview 5-W if x-heights had been normalized (for Clearview this is 84% of capital letter height, while for the FHWA alphabet series it is 75%).  This is an old finding.  The main advance made by the authors of this paper is in methodology:  they used techniques that have been developed to test in-vehicle displays and do a better job of controlling for response time lag.

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, the latter two being treated as aliased versions of the same basic typeface (the same concept behind Transport Medium for positive contrast, Transport Heavy for negative contrast, and the mythical, probably-never-actually-developed Transport Light for internally illuminated signs).  Series D (which the experimenters think is the "default" for negative-contrast applications; this is not actually true since B, C, E, and F are also fair game) was deliberately excluded on grounds that it would have unbalanced the experimental design and weakened the statistical analysis.

The authors seem to have been very much in the orbit of Meeker, who is mentioned in the acknowledgments.  Chrysler worked in the same TTI lab that did a couple of the first Clearview studies.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SignGeek101 on January 30, 2017, 11:10:58 PM
I'm going to assume series EEM was not considered in this study...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on January 31, 2017, 12:21:30 AM
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

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on January 31, 2017, 10:15:44 AM
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.

To my knowledge, Series D & E all-caps applications and Highway Gothic numerals (Series C through E in particular) had no readability issues; which was the reason why the Interim Approval was very narrow in scope & application.

In short & IMHO; the MIT study seems, at best, not a fully-complete nor fair comparison; and, at worst, biased towards the Clearview font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 31, 2017, 10:53:35 AM
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 was referring to the abstract.  Part of the problem we have faced with Clearview is agencies relying on very limited studies, generally comparing only Clearview 5-W to Series E Modified (Series D has not been in the mix since the early noughties), to conclude that all of the Clearview W series are superior to the FHWA series in positive-contrast applications.  This is why it is important to specify that experimental results refer just to the typefaces from each family that have actually been tested, not the entirety of the typeface families.  Even the use of the non-official term "Highway Gothic" is unhelpful.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on January 31, 2017, 11:35:06 AM
And thinking about it... MIT study is fairly simple from software perspective. Similar program can be drafted with minimal effort to run on PC screen, assuming fonts are available on the machine. Would be cool to scratch a program and do some first-hand "studies" to see how big the difference is for this forum population...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on February 01, 2017, 09:13:42 PM
Excluding Series D because it would be a "third font" which would weaken the statistical analysis seems fishy.  It's a lab simulation, not a real-life test track exercise in actual sign viewing conditions.  A font that would actually be seen out there was excluded.  Meeker is acknowledged for providing background on Clearview's design, and the study concludes that it adds "converging evidence of its superior legibility" when in reality, there is evidence that Clearview isn't superior all the time.  The study seems to be flawed, biased, or otherwise somehow imperfect.

What about EEM?  Why exclude D?  (D was excluded because it was inconvenient.)  Not sold on the study's impartiality or objectivity.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on February 01, 2017, 11:36:51 PM
Not to mention that a PC screen probably can't adequately simulate things like reflectivity, halation, and such. (I've not read the study and don't know if they attempted to simulate these or not.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MikeCL on February 04, 2017, 01:50:10 AM
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)).
I live in Greenwich and no one takes that don't block the box serious.. the sign is crappy looking
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 30, 2017, 11:48:03 PM

For some of the cities here in the East Valley of the Phoenix metro area, Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek now use FHWA for all new street blades including those on signalized intersections, with FHWA now becoming common in the former two.  These cities previously used Clearview, and prior to that signalized intersections in Mesa and Gilbert used Helvetica (although Helvetica is now becoming rare in Mesa as they get replaced by new signs in FHWA).


However, Chandler seems to be a different story.  While street blades for non-signalized intersections have reverted to FHWA (though now in mixed case), it appears that Chandler is now using a thinner-stroked Helvetica for the lighted signs at signalized intersections, since I did notice such signs that appeared to be brand new.  Chandler did use Helvetica for the lighted signs at signalized intersections prior to switching to Clearview, but these new Helvetica signs had thinner letter strokes than most of Chandler's Helvetica signs.  It looks fairly similar to the Helvetica used on Tempe's illuminated signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: txstateends on March 31, 2017, 08:28:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 31, 2017, 01:06:56 PM
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.

As far as I know, Texas is one of the states that is challenging the elimination of Clearview, so my guess is that they are continuing to use Clearview in protest.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 01, 2017, 02:40:46 AM
Oklahoma has been posting signs from what appears to be its first major post-Clearview project, along I-240 eastbound approaching I-35. Some of the new signs are on monotube gantries, which is as far as I know the first combination of FHWA Series/monotube in Oklahoma (which feels really weird, since Oklahoma introduced monotubes well into the Clearview era).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 02, 2017, 02:58:53 PM
Here in the Phoenix area, on the ADOT side of things, several new signs using non-Modified Series E have gone up on the Loop 101 Price Freeway in the past month, most of which have replaced older button copy signs but some of which have replaced some early Clearview signs.

I wonder if other states will consider adopting a similar practice.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 02, 2017, 09:35:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 03, 2017, 11:34:11 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on April 03, 2017, 01:58:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 03, 2017, 05:49:42 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 03, 2017, 08:04:50 PM
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

Good to know, thanks.  Considering how Clearview-crazy MDOT went (replacing signs that didn't need it, IMO), I assumed they thumbed their noses when the interim approval was rescinded.  I e-mailed MDOT and asked if the sign plans were available for viewing online, but received no reply.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 04, 2017, 01:33:08 AM
I'm 95% certain the signing plans are online, but they're a bit tricky to find on MDOT's Eproposals site without a letting month and call.  I'm away from home at the moment and will check to see if I have the signing sheets extracted when I return.

As for MDOT and Clearview generally, it's been half and half in recent lettings.  Last winter one Upper Peninsula signing replacement was in Clearview and the other was in FHWA series.

As for TxDOT, a lot of recent plans have been Clearview, but not all of them.  It takes time to turn around the aircraft carrier.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on April 07, 2017, 01:38:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 07, 2017, 02:39:32 PM
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.

Here in Arizona I have noticed ADOT replace some Clearview signs with Highway Gothic Series E as well.  Also, the City of Mesa has replaced a few Clearview street blades with Highway Gothic Series D, as well as replacing many of their older Helvetica street blades.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 08, 2017, 12:12:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on April 08, 2017, 10:48:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 08, 2017, 11:26:17 AM
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.

Both Lakewood and Fife have historically followed the MUTCD to a tee. The fact that they adopted Clearview at all is staggering, if not completely out of character. You're right; street blades do not have the same font restrictions as other signs, but the FHWA still recommends Highway Gothic for road signs. My guess is that these cities would rather just use Highway Gothic for all signs, if only for simplicity's sake.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if the FHWA required a Clearview IA to use the typeface on street blades?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 08, 2017, 02:28:53 PM
Yes, although some state DOTs phrased their approval request to include all highway agencies within the state. Oklahoma DOT, for example, included in their IA request "This request is for all jurisdictions within the state of Oklahoma." That would include OkDOT and OTA, but also any city that wished to use Clearview (although I'm not aware of any that did other than one intersection in Norman).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 08, 2017, 04:04:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 08, 2017, 10:56:37 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SD Mapman on April 09, 2017, 12:19:33 AM
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.
And also explains why Atchison, KS is still putting up brand-new Clearview street blades.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 09, 2017, 04:32:59 PM
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).

I appreciate the info.  I finally found the project page but can't view the sign plans because they're in a format my computer can't read (SGN file?).  Oh, well -- I'll eventually see the real things when the install is complete.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 09, 2017, 04:45:17 PM
The *.sgn files are SignCAD files and to view them you need either SignCAD itself or a specialist SignCAD viewer (not cheap, let alone free).  I'd just go to the plans--they are in PDF and should have about 57 pages of sign truss elevations and sign panel detail sheets, as well as the sign layouts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 09, 2017, 08:34:25 PM

Looks like we have an official bill that will mandate the FHWA to approve Clearview:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2029/all-info?r=96
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 09, 2017, 08:37:53 PM
Oh boy, politicians trying to force through what specialists and engineers didn't approve of. Fun stuff.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 09, 2017, 08:52:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 09, 2017, 08:58:52 PM
So why did the FHWA rescind its approval for Clearview, then? Is there really a bias against studies demonstrating its superiority?

Edit: Never mind, I posted right before your edit. I'm leaving this post for discussion purposes, though.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on April 09, 2017, 09:15:21 PM
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:

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 09, 2017, 09:20:20 PM

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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on April 09, 2017, 09:26:18 PM

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).

The MIT study is better, but lab/computer-based testing can only go so far. Similar to the differences between diving simulators vs. actual, real-life driving. Ideally, lab testing should only be one phase; real-world testing needs to follow to be more comprehensive.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 09, 2017, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: text of 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

Other purposes? What other purposes?  Whatever Meeker says is appropriate?  Numerals in route shields?  All-caps? Dark text on light background? 

What is wrong with leaving MUTCD decisions to the engineers and scientists?  How much has Meeker donated to these four cosponsors from Texas?  I'd love to know.

I'd love if it were amended to make Clearview in the public domain without royalty.  Would Meeker et al. be enthusiastic anymore?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 09, 2017, 10:36:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 09, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
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.

It will sure be interesting, because positive-contrast destination legend was all that was supposed to be used under the IA.  Not that anyone using it seemed to care until lately.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on April 10, 2017, 01:38:30 AM
"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.

For what it's worth, it seems to be being pushed by the Texas delegation in particular (not surprising given both TTI and TxDOT's enthusiasm for Clearview); there are four co-sponsors, two from each party.

Here's a press release from Johnson (http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398602) discussing his (and the other Rep. Johnson's) motivations in supporting the bill, which includes a supportive quote from TxDOT.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 10, 2017, 07:35:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2017, 08:33:27 AM
Here's what you mainly need to know about this bill...

Sponsor:  Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX-3] (Introduced 04/06/2017)

Clearview's developing source (Per Wikipedia):   It was developed by independent researchers with the help of the Texas Transportation Institute...

No doubt there was some influence there.  PA also had a lot to do with the development of Clearview as well.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 10, 2017, 10:45:55 AM
"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.

This is what I was trying to get at by suggesting that the "other purposes" were unimportant sundries--thanks for expressing this more fluently than I did.  In principle "other purposes" holds the door open for riders, and since Congress (unlike many state legislatures) does not have a single-subject requirement for bills, it is conceptually possible for one or more of these riders to be far more radical in scope than the measure explicitly specified in the bill title.  However, such amendments are considered so mischievous that there are strong institutional constraints against introducing them.

Since the bill is effectively a mandamus action, only directed by Congress rather than a judge, it requires the FHWA head to take an action for which he or she has been granted powers under separate legislation.  I suspect that the "other purposes" will include verbiage clarifying that there will be no change to the administrator's duties and powers as specified elsewhere in statute, and relieving him or her of the obligation to consult stakeholders and the public through the rulemaking process before adding Clearview to the MUTCD.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 10, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
I read that press release and it reads like an advertisement to entice people to buy Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2017, 01:01:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 10, 2017, 01:19:52 PM
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.

The studies that seem to show Clearview as superior have a strange tendency to be uncontrolled.  My personal favorite is one that showed a faded FHWA sign next to a Clearview sign with new sheeting at night.  Of course the Clearview one is easier to read, it's got newer reflective sheeting.  On a direct one-to-one basis, Clearview has never (as far as I have seen) been proven to have any better legibility than FHWA font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 10, 2017, 02:22:33 PM
Here is a letter from the Institute of Transportation Engineers on the NCUTCD's position:
http://files.constantcontact.com/4990d50b001/075f45d8-74c7-4c0a-9056-53b365012f75.pdf?ver=1485957770000

Perhaps the ITE/NCUTCD position is the driving force behind the bill.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 10, 2017, 02:31:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 10, 2017, 03:51:40 PM
I read that press release and it reads like an advertisement to entice people to buy Clearview.

That's what it sounded like to me as well.  They do not mention shortcomings of studies, other studies showing other findings, or the high cost of Clearview. 

I still have the gut feeling that this bill has come about because the originators of Clearview have hurt feelings about the IA ending and they will gosh darn get their font approved for good if it even takes a law to do it. 

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--positive contrast mixed-case destination legend in 5-W or 5-W-R only.  No shield numerals.  No all-caps action messages.  No exit tabs or gore signs.  No negative contrast of any kind.  No headings of blue service signs (they are all-caps).  Proper ratio of heights between capital and lowercase letters must be maintained; no microscopic lowercase letters due to improper scaling.

Research on Enhanced E should continue as well; it has been clear through the process that benefits of Clearview were in part due to its size--the letters themselves were larger than those of the FHWA lettering, so no wonder the Clearview was easier to read.  Enhanced E would be a royalty-free, public-domain solution to improved legibility if it were to work as it seems it may.  I am sure that there is a profit motive in keeping the Clearview train chugging, which is not right. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on April 10, 2017, 03:54:32 PM
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

They could put a big green arrow sticker by that part, and then write "READ THIS!" in the margin with red Sharpie.
That should be good enough.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 10, 2017, 05:45:34 PM
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.
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on April 10, 2017, 08:02:51 PM
The bill probably won't pass as a stand-alone (although it could, given that it's likely not to arouse much opposition so it could make its way onto either the consent calendar or be brought up under suspension of the rules), but with Bill Schuster (PA) in charge of the House Transportation Committee it will probably get a hearing and be folded into something that does pass; that tends to be how things work these days.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 11, 2017, 12:43:47 PM
They've certainly been running articles in enough media outlets.  While they certainly aren't as influential as, say, a large multinational corporation, they do have at least some influence, and since few would care either way (pretty much just the representatives for the states that were enthusiastic adopters), so not as much financial/political capital would be needed.  Plus this could easily be spun as a victory for states rights against the federal bureaucracy for Republicans (it DOES increase freedom for the states), and for safety improvements for Democrats (even if we know the studies showing Clearview to be more legible are flawed, Joe Public doesn't), so many representatives might vote for it just for the symbolic victory.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2017, 08:59:51 PM
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?

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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2017, 09:50:43 PM
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 don't think an usurpation argument would work in this context because the FHWA administrator's legal authority to compile a MUTCD and make rules relating to traffic control devices flows directly from an Act of Congress.  What Congress gives Congress can also take away, and Congress can also define the extent of the administrator's discretion in exercising his or her rulemaking authority.

A somewhat related issue is the concept of a private statute, i.e., a law that is private or local in application.  Congress and the state legislatures inherited this from the British Parliament.  The general rule of thumb is that a private law is constitutional as long as it does not confer disadvantage on a particular individual, in which case it would violate the ban on bills of attainder.  One common use of private bills in the past was to confer US citizenship on named individuals--for example, Jun Fujita, the Japanese issei news photographer who is nowadays probably best known for his pictures of corpses after the St. Valentine's Day massacre, became a US citizen through a private bill at a time when immigration law did not otherwise allow Asians to naturalize as US citizens--but in principle it can also be used as a vehicle to allow a typeface, or a family of typefaces, to be used on traffic signs.

Edit:  Another example that is perhaps more on point is the provision that allows a particular city (I think somewhere in New England) to have a centerline on its main street that is red, white, and blue instead of the usual double yellow.  It has been mentioned in past editions of the MUTCD and may still be in the current one; I think the authority for this exception comes directly from an Act of Congress.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Thing 342 on April 11, 2017, 09:52:27 PM
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?

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?
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.

---

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 12, 2017, 12:02:23 AM
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?

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?
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.

---

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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 12:33:48 AM
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.

Let's be very clear here: there have been several studies on Clearview. Some show it to be superior, some show it to be virtually identical. Some show it to be marginally worse. But none show it to be substantially worse. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 12, 2017, 03:14:17 AM
Right, my objections are less about Clearview–I don't like it but it is something I'm used to, at least–and more to the fact that Congress is not allowing the administrator of FHWA to make their own judgment drawing off the engineering data available to them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 12, 2017, 07:57:57 AM
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.

To be honest, I'm not exactly a fan of Clearview, but at the same time I don't care much either way whether it ever receives final approval. I'm actually a fan of the idea of letting states decide which font to use.

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Big John on April 12, 2017, 10:45:31 AM

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 12, 2017, 11:22:50 AM
I think VDOT has also at times used Clearview for shield digits, but this was eventually corrected.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 12, 2017, 12:12:19 PM
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.

Per FHWA re the MUTCD:
Quote
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.

Shield shapes, exit tab designs, etc. are a whole different beast than the typeface used to present destination legend.

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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on April 12, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 12, 2017, 03:40:33 PM
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.

As for blue vs. green backgrounds, keep in mind that the human eye is more sensitive to green than it is to blue.  However, this hasn't stopped the FHWA from approving blue backgrounds for street blades along with brown and white backgrounds as alternatives to green.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 12, 2017, 06:49:26 PM
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.

Even if it were a wash, the whole point of the MUTCD is standardization. Making warning signs yellow instead of red is an equally arbitrary decision. There is nothing about octagons that intrinsically means "stop". But it's been decided that having some degree of consistency throughout the country is more important that making state-level administrators feel good about all the freedom they have.

Just remember, every freedom your state DOT is extended gets extended to OkDOT too. That should scare the shit out of anyone.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 07:27:39 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on April 12, 2017, 08:00:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 08:14:28 PM
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.

Not even Clearview supporters would disagree with you. I think Clearview should be in the public domain if it were added to the MUTCD. As a matter of principal, I don't think the FHWA should be (effectively) advertising a typeface in the manual. But the cost per workstation is not very much. Twenty workstations would come in at less than $20k. Sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else that an agency has to spend money on.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on April 12, 2017, 08:32:31 PM
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. That being said, the research either way has been inconclusive. When the main argument presented by the big proponents right now is "it looks prettier", I have to shoot it down as a researcher. That's subjective and not enough evidence. Most (if not all) of the supportive research has come out of PA or TX, which funded the damn font, so it's hardly impartial.

Look, 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 12, 2017, 08:54:24 PM
Anyway if anyone is micromanaging here, it's FHWA micromanaging 57 state and territorial transportation agencies.

If some agency wants to do what it feels like, it can feel free to not take any federal money.  Otherwise they ought to put up with the strings that are attached.  That's part of following the national MUTCD--going by what it says and following the rules it has.

Clearview might have gotten through unscathed if it weren't for agencies doing all sorts of crap with it.  The FHWA FAQ I linked has all the example photos that people are familiar with--negative contrast, all-caps, route shields, negative contrast route shields, etc. that weren't a problem before Clearview.  Agencies showed that they largely can't handle doing it right, so FHWA finally gave up and took the toys away. 

The press release showed that the sponsors of the bill believe the story from the Clearview purveyors, and that they are either ignorant of or do not believe the research that does not support Clearview. 

The agencies adopting it on their own dime was a risk they agreed to take when it was under an interim approval.  There was never a guarantee that Clearview would be approved forever.  Saying "but we paid for this!" is not a reason to keep Clearview at all.  If anything, agencies should have said they'd try it if it were cheaper or free--but we know that would not have been approved by the makers.  It should be public domain if adopted permanently.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 12, 2017, 10:05:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on April 12, 2017, 10:26:39 PM
Well, from a legal perspective the creators of Clearview can't stop people from tracing the font and making a pattern-accurate clone of it, as long as they don't copy the underlying "code" of the font itself. So there's nothing stopping FHWA or anyone else from producing a typeface that duplicates the appearance of Clearview (or Transport or Times New Roman, for that matter). In any event, design shops pay (directly or indirectly) a typeface foundry for their digital version of the FHWA series fonts too, since they're not going to the trouble of tracing the character glyphs from the MUTCD.

In any event, FHWA rescinded the IA. A significant number of states and members of Congress have told FHWA that decision was a mistake and, that falling on deaf ears under waning days of the previous administration, have moved to the legislative process. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2017, 11:09:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 12, 2017, 11:11:36 PM
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.

That (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1411.msg2199858#msg2199858) was toward the bottom of the 55th page of this thread, back in January, and the only person I see who actually responded was Rothman ("Pfft.  No.").

For what it is worth, I considered that idea a long shot, but didn't ridicule it or dismiss it out of hand, because of the potential for a large Clearview-using state DOT to mobilize its congressional delegation against the evils (real or perceived) of going back to the FHWA series after much of the guide signing has already been upgraded to Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 12, 2017, 11:54:56 PM
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?

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.

Quote
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).

No, 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.

If anything, blame is to be placed on the DOTs that spent millions of dollars falling for Meeker & Associates' marketing campaign when there was only one study at the time showing Clearview to be more effective when it was given advantages.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 13, 2017, 01:28:52 AM
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.

Okay, I'm pretty confused.

cl94 states that there have been far more than three studies on Clearview, and that the results have been inconclusive. Scott, you seem to indicate there have only been three studies, and (subjectively) the only one worth its weight came out in favour of Series E (or EE(M)).

Personally, I don't think the MIT study was worthless or inaccurate. Lab testing is just as important as field testing (field testing often has too many uncontrollable variables that can skew results).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 13, 2017, 05:47:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 13, 2017, 02:24:50 PM

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)

Please tell me that wasn't a widespread practice. :-|
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: cl94 on April 13, 2017, 08:39:07 PM
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.

Lab testing can done in a method that adequately studies motion. That study wasn't done in a manner that simulated motion in a realistic way.

A quick search is giving me at least 300 different papers from multiple studies. Over half were from PA or TTI, neither of which are impartial in any way. There hasn't been enough independent research, nor is it a hot topic outside of the places funding it. We need at least 10 times the independent research to form a conclusion. Until then, there are probably more than enough signs in existence to use for research.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 13, 2017, 10:25:17 PM
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.

It was a metaphor, not something literal.

FHWA did make clear in the discontinuation that the marked decrease in sign quality and all the problems with too-small margins, Clearview in inappropriate uses, etc. (especially at the local level where the state DOT doesn't monitor stuff but the approval covered all agencies in a state) was a huge problem brought on by Clearview with no sign of stopping.  They used the word "metastasized" which demonstrated that FHWA's opinion was that Clearview implementation as-was was causing a lot of trouble, so it had to be stopped, at least for the time being.

FHWA did see enough trouble with Clearview in route shields to specifically call out and shame it on their FAQ site--it is not appropriate and they shouldn't look the other way.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 18, 2017, 01:25:04 AM
We have bill text now. Unlike many bills, it's readable by humans. Like many bills, it has a cheesy acronym.

Quote from: H.R. 2029
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.

It doesn't state any penalty for non-compliance. Not that it's likely, but I wonder what would happen if the FHWA Administrator simply failed to act within the specified time period?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on April 18, 2017, 03:01:44 AM
Hmmm... sounds like another case where politicians think they know more than scientists and/or researchers.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 22, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
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? It's the job of the executive branch to implement the directives of the legislative branch. Not the other way around. If Congress mandates the federal government to sign national parks with blue letters on hot pink signage with yellow borders, who is FHWA to say otherwise? The people (taxpayers) are supposed to run the government through the directives of their elected officials. The government isn't supposed to be a self-sustaining bureaucracy, although that's what it has become.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on April 22, 2017, 11:53:40 PM
Pfft.  Congress has granted USDOT a lot of latitude in handling transportation funding and management.  I have no problem with Congress laying out a broader legislative mandate and the funding (as it has through Title 23) while leaving the specifics to executive branch regulations.

When Congress gets involved with the specifics, you end up with I-99. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 03:12:17 AM
I guess this is the thing that bugs me about much of this discussion. Who works for whom?

Neither of them work for the other. The three branches of government are equal. They all work for the people.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 03:33:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 23, 2017, 06:04:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 23, 2017, 11:54:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 02:08:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 23, 2017, 02:51:22 PM
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.

Probably Meeker or his firm, or perhaps Texas DOT since they are so heavily invested in Clearview. At any rate, this is probably the epitome of special interest legislation. I honestly don't think anyone besides roadgeeks are going to care what font is used on a highway sign. My guess is the majority of drivers didn't even notice when Clearview started showing up. They don't have this odd sentimental attachment to the old font that so many roadgeeks do. We noticed because that's who we are.

This really isn't like the newspaper business, where customers get used to a certain appearance of the product and readily notice changes. During my years as a newspaper editor, I was involved in a handful of redesigns. People did notice if we had a new headline font, new byline style, etc., but they still sought the same information.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2017, 06:15:21 PM
I don't like Clearview because the signs are ugly.  There are some jurisdictions like Vermont and Québec that make it look good, but the vast majority do not.

As for elected officials, I have never seen a case of micromanagement that turned out well.  At best, we get I-99; on the other hand, we could also get a NYC subway system closed for snow that never fell.  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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 07:31:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 08:10:08 PM
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.

Parties define a goal, but it's up to legislators to pass specific legislation to reach that goal.

As far as legislation itself, most of it is pretty specific. It's more likely to pass when the legislature knows what it is that they're voting on.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 08:25:35 PM
Perhaps "general" was the wrong word to use. What I mean is, legislatures craft legislation to get things done. For example, a legislature passes a bill to build a road, and the governor/president signs it into law. That bill will say generally where it is to be built, and for what general purpose and/or capacity, but it's not going to specify lane widths or places for drainage culverts or specify the signage required. That's what specialized departments (in this case, the DOT) are for. The departments are what make those decisions; they ensure proper implementation of the legislation.

This is why a bill explicitly requiring/allowing a certain typeface to be used on signs is silly. That's something that should be left to the departments, who are full of engineers and specialists whose expertise is better suited to making such decisions.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 09:28:45 PM
It is not really tenable to argue that Congress can't pass a law requiring FHWA to approve a certain typeface family for use on highway signs.  However, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that in so doing, Congress breaches an institutional norm in favor of leaving technical decisions to engineers in the permanent administration, trusting that they will make their choices in the public interest and on the basis of careful study of the various options, using decision-making tools such as cost-benefit analysis.

This is admittedly an idealized view of how things are to work.  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.  And in this particular case we are focusing on Clearview versus the FHWA series, a controversy which is dwarfed by the fact that FHWA's mixed-case requirement amounts to a loophole allowing agencies to use mixed-case Series B on freeway guide signs, without regard to its unit legibility.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 23, 2017, 09:51:12 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 23, 2017, 10:21:11 PM


 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 23, 2017, 10:27:54 PM
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.

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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2017, 10:49:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 24, 2017, 02:53:49 AM
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.)

This is more or less another way of putting of what I am arguing above.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 24, 2017, 01:33:21 PM
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?

Not sure.  However, for most people, since the human eye is much more sensitive to green than it is to blue, a sign with a green background can probably be detected at a longer distance at night than one with a blue background assuming the same grade of sheeting is used.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 24, 2017, 04:14:59 PM
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.)

That's why people contact their legislators to get certain things done. In this instance, a constituent had a representative's ear to file this legislation. If any of you know your congressional representative, you could ask them to file a competing bill.

(I know my congressman -- not really really well -- but I'm not going to ask him to because Clearview doesn't bother me the way it does some of you.  :bigass: )
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 24, 2017, 05:34:39 PM
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.

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.)
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 29, 2017, 05:25:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on July 30, 2017, 07:27:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2017, 11:13:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 30, 2017, 11:24:24 PM

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.


But it is surprising how few Democrats have cosponsored the bill, even from states outside Texas.  This makes me wonder what will be the vote on the bill by party.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 31, 2017, 07:41:54 AM
0 to 0, most likely. It hasn't even made it out of the Transportation committee yet, despite being referred there in April.

To be frank, the House has more important things to do than legislate this; the next big thing to do after the August recess is handle the debt ceiling, and also try to tackle the FY 2018 budget, both of which are issues that Speaker Ryan is personally very invested in (before becoming Speaker, he was in his dream job of Ways and Means chair). Even if this came sailing out of the committee, he's not likely to schedule floor time for this bill when financial issues are still pending.

After that we'll get into the midterm campaign season, which is not historically the most Congressionally productive time.

If they REALLY wanted to get this done, the way to do it would be to attach it as a rider to a transportation bill like whatever the next SAFETEA/ISTEA/TEA-21 ends up being called. The fact that Rep. Johnson filed it as a stand-alone bill kind of makes me wonder if Rep. Johnson just wanted to show someone "look, I did something" for whatever reason.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2017, 01:23:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 02, 2017, 12:55:25 PM
Another legislation, H.R. 3353, contains text to reinstate the interim approval for Clearview:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3353/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Fiscal+Year+2018+Transportation%2C+Housing+and+Urban+Development+Funding%22%5D%7D&r=2 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3353/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Fiscal+Year+2018+Transportation%2C+Housing+and+Urban+Development+Funding%22%5D%7D&r=2)

Unlike the SIGN Act, this bill will only reinstate the interim approval, rather than forcing the FHWA to issue a final rule to incorporate Clearview into the MUTCD.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ColossalBlocks on August 02, 2017, 09:55:00 PM
Iowa in a nutshell.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC0drmWUIAAyJME.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on August 17, 2017, 06:13:16 PM
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).

Also of interest: both the House and Senate appropriations bills for FHWA for Fiscal Year 18 call for IA-5 to be reinstated either directly or indirectly: House Appropriators Fuel FHWA Font Fight (https://www.enotrans.org/article/house-appropriators-fuel-fhwa-font-fight/):

Quote
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.”

The provision also made it into the proposed omnibus spending bill (https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS%20-115HR3354HR3268HR3267HR3280HR3355HR3358HR3362HR3353-RCP115-31.pdf) published yesterday in the House (page 1174):

Quote
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 of yet it is unclear if the Senate will produce a similar omnibus bill or try to get the House to pass the individual parts separately.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on August 17, 2017, 06:56:11 PM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on August 18, 2017, 12:51:05 AM
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.)

I'm pretty sure a subcontractor just messed up and nobody caught it, or they just decided replacing the signs would be a waste of money since virtually nobody would notice the difference. You'd have to be incredibly anal (i.e. a roadgeek) to pick up on it either way.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ekt8750 on September 24, 2017, 07:17:05 PM
Philadelphia has finally gotten the memo that Clearview's been revoked. Saw some new blades around town using mixed-case Highway Gothic Series B and C. Have to say they looked really nice.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 24, 2017, 07:33:42 PM
I might as well mention this:

http://falconsvp3.dot.state.wy.us/falconwebv3/falconwebapi3.aspx?cmd=search&app=apidesignplans&env=design%20plans&web%20viewable=yes&svp%20search=design%20plans

If you scroll down the listing (there is no way to provide a direct link to any of the files), one of the projects currently listed is an I-80 signs upgrade covering the route from Laramie eastward.  The sign layout sheets are pattern-accurate and confirm that Wyoming DOT has given up on Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 25, 2017, 01:01:03 PM
Personally, I have to "believe it when I see it" on the signs here in Wyoming.   Too bad there's not an overall sign design  document listed there.  Well, there may be somewhere, but digging into government documents makes my brain hurt.   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 02, 2017, 12:50:03 PM
It looks like Chandler's use of thin-stroked Helvetica as a replacement for Clearview on its illuminated street blades was apparently short-lived, since I saw illuminated street blades with brand new sheeting in FHWA today (I think it was at Chandler Boulevard and Alma School).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 11, 2017, 09:37:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 11, 2017, 10:32:49 AM
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.

I know Arizona and Virginia have made the switch back.  However, does anyone know about Texas?  Texas is the lead state that is challenging the FHWA's decision on the rescinding of the interim approval, and continued to use Clearview well after the FHWA rescinded its interim approval.

However, note that ADOT isn't using Series E-Modified, but is using plain Series E on freeway BGS, Series D on regular roads, and Series C on street blades.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 11, 2017, 11:37:27 AM
Kentucky is still using a mixture. I've noticed that on projects where signing plans were developed prior to the approval being rescinded, Clearview is still being installed. But on replacement signage, it's back to FHWA. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 11, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tckma on December 11, 2017, 11:47:12 AM
It seems to me that any new signage I see going up here in MD is still in Clearview.  It was nice to see new signs in Connecticut using Highway Gothic last time I was up there, though I'm a bit sad to see their button copy and outline shields go.  The white route shields are probably more reflective, I tell myself -- though I have always enjoyed their outline button copy shields.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on December 11, 2017, 01:34:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bitmapped on December 11, 2017, 03:32:18 PM
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.

West Virginia always used FHWA on DOH-manufactured signage. Clearview signage was installed by contractors, generally as part of larger sign replacement projects. I don't think DOH wanted to spend money on the Clearview licenses.

A couple years ago, US 50 (Corridor D) between Parkersburg and Clarksburg got a complete signage replacement in Clearview. Soon after, you started seeing DOH-installed replacements with FHWA pop up because of accidents and road name changes. This was well before Clearview use was rescinded.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 11, 2017, 03:57:18 PM
I wonder, has NMDOT District 5 switched back?  They were the only district in New Mexico to use Clearview.

Locally, Clearview has been used by the City of Rio Rancho, as well as Los Alamos County.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: okroads on December 11, 2017, 10:46:47 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 12, 2017, 01:35:30 AM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 12, 2017, 02:44:24 PM
Oklahoma has definitely switched back. Some FHWA Series panels went up in the otherwise entirely-Clearview I-35/SH-9 project in Norman, and a fairly big signage contract for I-35 was let that will replace a whole bunch of Clearview signs with FHWA Series.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 12, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on December 12, 2017, 07:00:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 12, 2017, 08:17:10 PM
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.

I'm used to seeing both in BC, although Helvetica is by far more common. Between those two and FHWA, I don't really prefer any of them. They all look fine to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 01:15:56 AM
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.

I neglected to take a photo, but I also saw a Clearview variation of the stop sign "ALL WAY" plaque: https://goo.gl/nAXsZ5 (doesn't look like it from the image, but IRL it was definitely Clearview).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on December 14, 2017, 08:54:57 PM
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).

Signage on US 30 from OH 235 to the Indiana line (some of it less than 10 years old, others 1999 button copy) is in replacement right now and is FHWA.  Akron street sign blades had been Clearview and are now FHWA as well. 

Interestingly, the signs on I-75 for the US 30 interchange, recent Clearview signs, have been replaced with FHWA.  I haven't been on I-75 itself beyond there lately or seen plans; was this only because of the interchange with 30?  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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on December 15, 2017, 11:40:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 15, 2017, 12:21:03 PM
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.

I know on the Loop 101 Price Freeway in Tempe and Chandler, Arizona, several Clearview signs were replaced by new signs in FHWA Series E.  This was part of a mass sign replacement project on the Price Freeway, since some of the other signs were older button-copy signs.  The only Clearview signs that were retained were those in Chandler in the southbound direction (I think those were newer than the others).  Also, the exit gore signs were updated to the tall/narrow type for urban areas.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 15, 2017, 01:15:12 PM
I don't think we necessarily have a full appreciation of how difficult it has been for some agencies to manage signface life in a way that avoids premature sign replacements.  There are three basic approaches out there:  (1) replace all signs in a given corridor at a set time interval regardless of actual retroreflectivity; (2) log all signs by install date and add them to a sign log or sign inventory and replace all signs in a certain date cohort based on sampling of a few signs within that cohort to assess the retroreflective performance of the cohort as a whole; or (3) use remote sensing on a periodic basis to find the signs, measure their retroreflectivity, and mark them up for replacement as needed.

(3) is cutting-edge and the bugs are still being worked out.  Finding the signs is done as part of photologging and machine vision is used to identify the signs.  The computer typically has access to a catalog of standard signs but is not necessarily reliable at identifying one-off designs.  (2) is conceptually straightforward, but experience suggests that many agencies struggle to maintain up-to-date sign logs.  Several software solutions are available for sign inventorying but without automation, the task has to compete for scarce staff resource not just for adding new signs to the log but also for sampling retroreflectivity.  (1) has the advantage of establishing a clear baseline and thereby simplifying planning for sign replacement without the need to dedicate resources to actually going out and checking sign retroreflectivity periodically.

In the fifteen or so years I have been collecting sign panel detail sheets (accumulating about 70,000 from 40 US states), I have seen a few instances of the same sign being replaced three or more times in a ten-year period without any changes in message.  My personal favorite example:

SH 290/SH 349 Iraan/Sheffield (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7346276,-101.8345172,3a,63.6y,303.63h,91.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-oiJ9k_Lg6N9eustapUqhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

However, what is going on here is also comparable to Griliches' account of the diffusion of hybrid corn.  It takes time for agencies to study the "smart" options for scheduling sign replacement, which includes familiarizing themselves with evolving technology, and develop business cases showing that the initial costs (in equipment, software, and staff resources) involved in going "smart" will eventually deliver savings compared to sticking with an existing "dumb" approach.  This all follows a logistic curve.  At some point in the future many agencies will transit rapidly from "dumb" to "smart" and then there will be just a few holdouts left replacing the same signs pointlessly at too-short intervals.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 15, 2017, 01:33:49 PM
As far as I know, all of ADOT's Clearview BGS used either Type IX or XI sheeting.  Both should have at least a 10 year lifespan.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on March 22, 2018, 03:11:39 PM
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):

Quote
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on March 22, 2018, 03:55:21 PM
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):

Quote
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).

 :thumbdown:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
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):

Quote
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).

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 22, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on March 22, 2018, 04:44:35 PM
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):

Quote
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).

It's not really back until it's passed both houses and is signed by Trump...right?

True, but it's expected to sail through the Senate and Trump is allegedly going to sign it.

As for the who and why, it's been discussed earlier in this thread: several state DOTs and the people involved in developing and testing Clearview lobbied their senators and representatives to push for the interim approval to be reinstated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SectorZ on March 22, 2018, 07:39:01 PM
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):

Quote
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).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 07:46:59 PM
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):

Quote
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).

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.

I see. So basically, unless the entire CAA is scrapped, or someone removes this provision, it's as good as implemented. Interesting.

This is probably as good of a time as any to throw my hat into the ring for Clearview. I've never hated it, and I'm looking forward to what the FHWA's plans are for the typeface.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2018, 07:53:20 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on March 22, 2018, 07:58:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 08:45:13 PM
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.

I don't believe a mandate will ever come around requiring the FHWA to implement the IA into the manual. But the re-implementation of the IA would allow for further study (since it would have otherwise proven futile).



By the way, why no definite article in front of "FHWA"? You're not the only one who does that, but it doesn't seem gramatically correct: "in a press release, Federal Highway Administration announced..." vs "in a press release, the Federal Highway Administration announced..." In some situations, it's appropriate to modify indefinite articles preceding acronyms ("an FYA" instead of "a FYA", since FYA begins with an "e" sound), but I don't think dropping the definite article altogether is appropriate, since "FHWA" is a specific noun that would otherwise require a definite article.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2018, 09:12:17 PM
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.

My gold standard for how interstate shields should look would be NYSDOT's standards from the 90s.  My gold standards for everything else are Vermont, Québec, and NYSDOT Region 3.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 10:06:39 PM
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.

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:

(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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 22, 2018, 11:23:38 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on March 23, 2018, 12:25:09 AM
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.

Uhh, yeah, I wonder if they had some kind of a "dimview", eh?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 23, 2018, 12:56:55 PM
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:

(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 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.

EDIT: I also noticed that the exit only text is done "California style", which certainly doesn't help.

In general, I don't really have a formula for why some signs look good and others don't... they just do.  This makes the fact that changing the font from FHWA to Clearview makes so much of a difference perplexing.  My best guess is that Clearview magnifies issues while FHWA suppresses them.  I've noticed that many of the places that have good-looking Clearview (actually, Québec's signage looks better in Clearview) tend to have sexy-looking signs to begin with, while the places where Clearview looks bad either had so-so signs or changed more than the font when they switched.  The Thruway is an interesting example: when they switched to Clearview, they also changed the font size and spacing, as well as there exit tab standards - they switched those back when they reverted to FHWA.  They also purchased non-reflective sheeting for the letters by mistake when they switched, making the signs unreadable at night (and less readable during the day... the letters look gray instead of white because of it); while this is a problem with both the Clearview and newer FHWA signs (they still haven't used all of it up), the problem seems to be worse on the Clearview ones, even though it's the exact same sheeting.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 23, 2018, 02:22:44 PM
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 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.

As for the West Virginia signs, I'm not real keen on Clearview 4-W for exit tabs.  I'd rather stop pretending that Series D and D-like typefaces are appropriate for exit tabs and simply use Series E Modified/Clearview 5-W/5-W-R.  Border detailing is much better, however, and it looks like they are using proper 30 in tabs instead of 24 in.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on March 23, 2018, 02:24:40 PM
Do you have an example of the West Virginia exit tabs? I thought they were very well applied on the I-64 signage projects near Huntington.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 23, 2018, 02:34:02 PM
I was working from the StreetView link Vdeane posted upthread.

Because WVDOT puts its letting plans online through Bid Express, which charges a $135/month subscription that I refuse to pay on principle (construction plans for public works projects should be available electronically at no charge), I have only a very limited sample of WVDOT signing plans.  However, it does include one sheet with a 2-mile advance guide sign for the US 40 Elm Grove Road exit on I-70.  It confirms 30 in exit tabs but tells me the tab legend is Clearview 5-W, not 4-W.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mtantillo on March 23, 2018, 04:21:36 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mtantillo on March 23, 2018, 04:23:07 PM
"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.

"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 14 January 25, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 4083)."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mtantillo on March 23, 2018, 04:26:15 PM
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 did die. Until it didn't die.

Although it is only back for a year, and FHWA has 90 days to provide research results.
I know for a fact that the Texas Congressional Delegation is working on language for next years appropriations bill that will make Clearview permanent.

And Congress legislates on everything, even things they don't know anything about. It is up to their staff to research the issue and inform the legislators as to whether or not they should support the legislation. In this case, parties from the State of Texas (maybe TxDOT, maybe TTI, I'm not sure exactly) lobbied their Congressional delegation, and apparently did a good enough job convincing their staff that this was a very important item to include in the bill.

And honestly, Clearview is a high enough level policy, that many civil servants get told by their superiors if they should support Clearview or not. Just because a DOT employee has an opinion, even an informed opinion on the matter, is irrelevant if the agency head feels differently.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on March 23, 2018, 04:45:52 PM
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).

A bipartisan effort from Tex-ass.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bitmapped on March 23, 2018, 08:08:26 PM
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:

(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 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.

West Virginia's signage in general is consistent and well done, both FHWA and Clearview. Clearview's usage in West Virginia was limited to contracted projects, either large scale sign replacements or other construction. Signage manufactured in-house continued to be made in FHWA, even when it was replacing Clearview signage.

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 23, 2018, 09:01:28 PM
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

We actually had a PennDOT employee on here a few years ago asking us what about these signs was so objectionable.  Several of us tried to explain that the issue was one of letter height mismatch between capitals and lowercase, but I am not sure it was getting through.  The problem seemed a lot worse in some districts than in others.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on March 23, 2018, 11:46:27 PM
ALDOT's Clearview signage has been pretty well made, IMO. Well, up until they decided to quit caring about quality control, which is something that's sadly continued into the use of Highway Gothic again.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 24, 2018, 02:01:34 AM
"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.

Are you sure? "As it existed before its termination" sounds like FHWA could comply just by reinstating the IA with the exact wording as before. The law says nothing about maintaining the approvals that existed before it. If FHWA wanted to be hard-nosed about it, they could require new approvals, pointing to the RRFB IA as precedent for how they handle the situation of a revived IA, and then dare TxDOT to file suit over it. (By the time the case was heard, the case might be mooted by the IA running out.)

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.

Anything can happen, but I doubt there's going to be many more chances to kick the can down the road on Clearview this Congress–this is going to be a turbulent midterm and September 30 is smack dab in the middle of campaign season.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SectorZ on March 24, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
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).

87, 82, and 66. Not to be ageist, but this is kind of the issue...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 24, 2018, 09:07:30 AM
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.

I think a background factor in all of this is Clearview-adopting agencies' willingness to run half-and-half systems while Clearview slowly ages out of existing signing as it is replaced.  TxDOT went to Clearview as part of a once-and-for-all changeover from button copy to whole-letter retroreflectorization, and signs were changed out between 1998 and 2006 at an intensity not seen since.  Michigan DOT and Arizona DOT also went on sign replacement sprees that local observers suggested were aimed at replacing existing signs with still-acceptable reflectivity just to get new Clearview signing in place.  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), I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that Michigan DOT will give Clearview another shot.

Iowa DOT went back to FHWA Series on its own account when the Grays Harbor letter from 2014 made it clear Clearview was on its way out, but I suspect they are very comfortable with a mixed system because they do rolling sign replacements in such a fashion that badly dilapidated signs with three-digit routes in two-digit shields (no longer the current standard) co-exist with fresh signs.  TxDOT, on the other hand, seems to like its signing fresh and consistent.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: thenetwork on March 24, 2018, 11:35:15 AM
Clearview works okay if used properly.  But try reading some of the BGS in Phoenix, AZ, at the major interchanges.

Having 3 different text font sizes on a single panel is overkill.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on March 24, 2018, 01:37:44 PM
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):

Quote
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).

Booooooo!!!!!!!  :thumbdown: :banghead:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 02:47:05 PM
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
To 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?

IIRC, and this was mentioned several pages back in this thread; the readability issues associated with mixed-case E-Modified post-button-copy (that triggered the whole Clearview font saga) had more to do with wider (than Standard Series E) letter stroke-width than anything else.  Using the narrower-stroked Series E lettering (either at the standard spacing of the E-Modifed spacing (which I believe is what Enhanced E-Modified font is)) would solve the readability issues that thicker-stroked (especially lower-case) letters had.

Such was the reasoning behind why the usage of the Clearview font in the Interim-Approval was so limited in scope/implementation & specific in the first place.  To my knowledge, there were no other readability issues associated with other FHWA fonts on other types of signs aside from Series B letters & numerals being too narrow to be read/deciphered from longer distances (personal opinion).

Maybe the 90-day period might open the door for the Enhanced E Modified font to be reviewed & accepted as an alternative.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 24, 2018, 03:12:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on March 24, 2018, 06:14:23 PM
Ugh, more of the same, eh?   While I will not discount that Clearview "works" but I'm still happy to "kill it with fire"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on March 24, 2018, 07:31:05 PM
Just because a DOT employee has an opinion, even an informed opinion on the matter, is irrelevant if the agency head feels differently.

Truer words were never spoken.

As for the re-emergence of Clearview, I know I'm in the minority on this and am quite happy being the contrarian, but this is how government is supposed to work. And that's not because I like Clearview. Honestly, now that I'm used to it, I don't even notice it unless a sign formerly in FHWA gets replaced by a Clearview sign. And that's mostly because "ooh, a pretty shiny new sign!" instead of "ooh, a pretty shiny new sign that's in Clearview!"

The executive branch exists to carry out the dictates of the legislative branch. In this case, the executive branch made a decision that some people -- most likely Meeker and TTI -- did not like. They were unable to get resolution through the executive branch, so they lobbied the legislature to do something about it and were successful in that effort. Everyone knew this was coming. We had discussed this here before, so surely FHWA didn't get caught off-guard. They could have also lobbied to get that provision of the bill removed. In this case, an interested constituency won out.

I don't foresee this having a lot of impact. I doubt states will rush out to buy Clearview and produce signs using it. I don't foresee more states applying for IA. States that had been using it may go back to it.

As for Kentucky, new Clearview signage has popped up even after recission of the original IA because the signs were included in plans drawn up before that happened. New one-off replacement signs, however, have been done in FHWA. Kentucky contracts out its panel signage, as well as some signage on new construction. To my knowledge, no state-fabricated signs have ever used Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 24, 2018, 08:02:31 PM
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.

Wouldn't surprise me. APLs are used wherever possible, much like how they are used in the Netherlands.

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".

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.

These are all legitimate concerns that I've noticed in the field as well. To address them point by point...

- I'm not sure what you mean by "inadequate space padding" in this context.

- Inset black borders are always used in that situation (part of the standard).

- Exit tabs are indeed undersized, but the letter suffixes are always superscript (and it's been this way long before Clearview was implemented). Rounded exit tabs are pretty normal, but they should reduce the radius of the curve.

- Borders around an entire sign/tab/patch is pretty standard (hence the "EXIT ONLY" patches with black borders)

- The cardinal direction is definitely too small (an issue I've noted many times before). This is an issue on and off the freeway.

- I've never thought the shield was too small, although BC is perfectly happy to use undersized shields. Seems about normal height to me (at least compared to every other Hwy 1 pull-through)

- I haven't yet seen an APL with up arrows of different heights, although that would be a welcome modification to improve padding.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 25, 2018, 05:45:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on March 25, 2018, 06:15:19 PM
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.

I agree completely. But to expect a politician to act ethically and/or morally? As long as the money's green or the key turns, the hell with what's right or logical. Since a highway sign font is something that the general populace won't give a damn about, riders like this will unfortunately continue. And if it does get mainstream press, people will just see it as another way 'Big Government' is trying to screw "small" business, regardless of how much their product will end up costing the taxpayer.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 25, 2018, 07:00:54 PM
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 sure what you mean by "inadequate space padding" in this context.

Ideally, there would be more yellow space top and bottom, closer (if not necessarily equal) to the yellow space provided at the sides, to allow the words to be picked out more easily.

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.

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.

My understanding is that, until a point in the late 1990's/early noughties, all traffic signs on MOT infrastructure were manufactured in the Ministry sign shop in Kamloops and were ordered using a periodically updated catalogue that was published in print and is now online.  The BC Font was custom-made for the MOT and only the sign shop had the correct letter dies and silkscreens.  Then the decision was taken to open up the Ministry's signing program to the private sector; I don't know if the MOT ever went so far as to advertise and award pure signing contracts, but they did jettison the BC Font for most applications (though I spotted BC Font stop signs with fresh sheeting as late as 2003) in favor of standardized typefaces like the FHWA alphabet series.  I believe it was around this time that the first Dutch-inspired guide signs started appearing, initially in Series E Modified.

As part of the signing privatization, the MOT started publishing a Sign Pattern Manual online.  Initially the graphics were vectors and could simply be extracted directly using Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator.  But after a few years the MOT appeared to have second thoughts about the privatization and rolled it back.  Around the same time, the Sign Pattern Manual graphics began to be rasterized prior to packing in PDFs, so that all one can now extract directly from the PDFs of recent editions is a resolution-limited bitmap.  The Sign Pattern Manual has since been merged into the Sign Catalogue, which is still published under that title and now has sign patterns (one sign per page) following the catalogue pages (multiple signs per page) for each chapter.

As a person who collects sign layouts, sign panel detail sheets, and sign elevations from construction plans sets, I have found BC MOT to be generally a disappointment in terms of material one can collect.  Most of the standards documents are online and can be downloaded, with older versions available through the Web Archive.  However, like many other Canadian provincial transportation ministries, BC MOT requires a paying subscription to download actual tender documentation for highway projects (C$100 annually for BC Bid in their case).  Many years ago I was able to take advantage of a fee holiday to download documentation for some projects, and found signing to be very sparse.  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.

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.

Yup.  I would fight use of the Clearview B series if that were proposed by an US agency, in light of there being better alternatives such as the FHWA alphabet series, but as long as BC MOT takes the inferior legibility performance into account in fixing letter height and so on, I can't really object on functional grounds.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DJStephens on March 25, 2018, 07:25:28 PM
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.   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DJStephens on March 25, 2018, 07:31:13 PM
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:


Might want to check out the overhead "BGS" approaching the interchange with I-19 on I-10 in Tucson.   "Nogales" appears in a huge out of scale presentation.  Awful.  There are also some lousy distance signs on I-8 approaching Gila Bend, with out of scale clearview fonts.  Although the majority of AZ-DOT signage appears to be reasonable, otherwise. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 25, 2018, 07:57:41 PM

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.


The City of Rio Rancho, as well as Los Alamos County, have used Clearview experimentally.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on March 25, 2018, 08:06:17 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on March 25, 2018, 08:56:36 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on March 26, 2018, 11:52:22 AM
If you do business with places that switched to Clearview it does.

However, under well-established U.S. law the design and metrics of typefaces cannot be copyrighted (only the actual font files), so any agency or company could use a knockoff of Clearview or even trace the letter designs themselves, and still comply with the IA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 11:59:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 26, 2018, 12:40:22 PM
I've long suspected that the complaints about the cost of Clearview font licenses are really about other, less tangible issues, chiefly a private-sector player coming in to inscribe public space and presume to lecture trained professionals on how it's done.  Unlike Clearview, the FHWA series and the rules for its deployment on signs (space padding, message loading limits, etc.) are largely the result of research carried out by traffic engineers working for government agencies.  This gives agencies ownership of the research product and paves the way toward them being adopted nationwide through consensus.  In contrast, although much of the early testing and validation of Clearview was carried out by PTC and TTI, I have heard no shortage of complaints from traffic professionals who resent asked to embrace Clearview because a few of their colleagues were responsive to Meeker's sales pitches.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 12:50:40 PM
I can see that.

I've worked for my entire career, balancing myself between IT and the marketing realm and these same discussions come up all the time. Web engineers have wildly differing opinions on how products and services should work and look versus someone who has spent their time in marketing. It's no different when we discuss traffic engineers and those involved in design (or traffic engineers and those who want, say, complete streets).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on March 26, 2018, 01:35:29 PM
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.

I'm looking at it from the consulting-world perspective. We're not designing hundreds of signs per year; we're on the order of maybe 100 signs in a year, with 2-3 people needing to access the font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 02:37:43 PM
Depends on the order. If Clearview is around the stay, then obtaining a license and using it full blown should be considered. 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. In this instance, are contractors paying for the cost of the license and simply increasing the cost of the sign? If so, that's gotta be small change compared to how many signs are replaced in the state (Clearview in Kentucky has been used for some ten years now?).

And it depends on the license, I suppose. If it's on a per user level, then that's still not a high cost. We had a license for an institution I worked for where it was per office, which was pretty unusual. But only 2 or 3 people will ever need to design a sign for a given DOT, right?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 26, 2018, 05:22:57 PM
The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SectorZ on March 26, 2018, 05:40:20 PM
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.

Whether it's a small fee or not, it's 100% unnecessary. It is the epitome of gov't waste since there is a perfectly acceptable (and debatably better) alternative.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 26, 2018, 06:09:30 PM
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.

That's a good point. It's a shame they can't come up with another short URL that isn't misleading.

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.

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...

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.

[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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 10:32:06 PM
The licence issue isn't just about costs to DOTs and contractors.  It is about a private company mooching profits using a government standard.

Then that debate can go on for years. Thousands of contractors who essentially did the work of government employees do that every day now. We no longer hire internally, we outsource. It's no different than when we license fonts or license software. If we were to go after the minimal cost of font licensing, then we should go after other wasteful entities (e.g. grifters, nepotism - both which were very evident and reported upon when I lived in Kentucky and West Virginia).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 27, 2018, 05:38:12 AM
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.

Without further studies, though, it remains to be seen whether the unit legibility increase is due to the stroke width or the character spacing changes from vanilla Series E. What data we have seems to point to the character spacing (which would make sense, following from the halation problems EM has due to small counter spaces). More data would be useful.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2018, 09:50:01 AM
One item that I believe has gotten lost in this recent discussion the 2016 revoking of IA has been reinstated for this fiscal year; nothing has been mentioned regarding the 2014 FHWA decision to not grant IA to additional states that applied for it in the past only to have it rejected in the wake of said-decision.  IIRC, Washington state applied for IA at that time and it's request was rejected.

In short, does this reversal of the 2016 decision only apply to states that were already had IA prior to 2014; or can other states apply for IA as well now?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on March 27, 2018, 10:44:06 AM
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 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...
Uniformity is a good idea, but there are millions miles of roads, and one size cannot fit all, there will be differences..
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 27, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
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 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.

We would have to have sight of the fabrication drawings to be sure, but I think the real story here is that the people who design guide signs for the MOT don't see these issues as problems and are not interested in revising their design standards to address them.

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...

We have had this discussion and variants of it before.  Some forum regulars have said that they do not believe the federal government should be in the business of regulating "minutiae" such as the typeface used on signs.  And there are examples of jurisdictions abroad, e.g. Canada, where typefaces from multiple families are mixed on traffic signs without there necessarily being an attempt to enforce a minimum unit legibility.

My personal view, formed on the basis of collecting traffic signing documentation from multiple countries for almost 20 years, is that notwithstanding the counterexample of various Canadian provinces, typographical consistency on traffic signs is the recognized international norm among wealthy countries and is worth having.  It is helpful in enforcing minimum legibility levels, it allows signs to be recognized more readily as having official standing, and it also signals intent on the part of public authorities to curate public space carefully.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on March 27, 2018, 12:09:05 PM
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?

Or paying private design firms when there are design engineers on staff?

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.

Kentucky doesn't do its own guide sign (BGS) fabrication. Replacements and one-off's 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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 27, 2018, 12:26:18 PM
IIRC, Washington state applied for IA at that time and it's request was rejected.

To clarify, it was Grays Harbor County, not the state of Washington. I did ask WSDOT what their position was on Clearview, and they told me they'd only use it if it we're implemented in the MUTCD.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 27, 2018, 12:59:39 PM
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.)

I have heard of other agencies that follow variants of this approach for signing work.  Caltrans, for example, still uses it for all of its small signs and for isolated large guide signs (e.g., knockdown replacements).  The signs are ordered on a standard form, called a Sign Installation Order, that is forwarded to the statewide sign contractor; then the finished signs are delivered to the appropriate maintenance depot for installation by state forces.

Another approach, used historically by Illinois DOT and (AFAIK) currently by Colorado DOT (for small signs work only) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, is to advertise a proposal-only contract that specifies fixed quantities of signs of various types, but does not include designs for the signs.  The designs are eventually sent to the contractor as part of work orders, and the contractor then fabricates and installs the signs.

I do not like any of these methods because they result in no documentation being made available at the advertising stage that includes sign layouts, sign elevations, and sign panel details.  The dream scenario would be for all agencies that use these methods to put the SIOs, work orders, etc. with such details online, e.g. on an EDMS, where they can be downloaded for study.  MnDOT already does this for signing work orders issued in connection with TODS.  I have heard that Caltrans also has an online SIO database, at least for District 7, but no public interface for it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 27, 2018, 01:06:54 PM
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?
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.

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...

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.
I actually think those FHWA font signs look significantly better than their Clearview signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 27, 2018, 01:15:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 27, 2018, 05:50:21 PM
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 27, 2018, 06:02:49 PM
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.

Thanks for the clarification.  I went back and looked at the Clearview IA since I distinctly remembered that there was an eleventh-hour attempt to stop the Clearview train using the fact it was a proprietary device.  (It is possible I learned of it through FHWA authority-to-experiment correspondence that was then posted on the ATSSA website, not necessarily through the Clearview IA documentation.)  The Clearview IA memo does state that Meeker waived trademark protection for "Clearview" as a descriptor for a particular font or typeface, but to me that looks more like granting permission to say "Hoover" instead of "vacuum cleaner."

As an aside, the Clearview IA is still listed as "terminated" even though the appropriations bill that resurrected it presumably took effect immediately.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Revive 755 on March 27, 2018, 06:21:29 PM
As an aside, the Clearview IA is still listed as "terminated" even though the appropriations bill that resurrected it presumably took effect immediately.

Probably some internal FHWA debate with their legal department on how to proceed and word the memo.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 27, 2018, 09:20:15 PM
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.

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.
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on March 28, 2018, 10:00:05 AM
I believe the RGB color values for the text do not match the actual text color in the example, either.

It's just ugly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on March 28, 2018, 02:07:44 PM
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?

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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 28, 2018, 02:17:31 PM
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.

I'm 80% with you. I don't think any typeface should be allowed. I think that would open the door for some states to drop in some Comic Sans near an amusement park, for example. But the difference between Clearview and Highway Gothic is almost negligible. It isn't, as studies have shown, but it's close enough that I really do believe the FHWA should permit either font, leaving the choice to the states.

With that said, I don't like how Clearview is setup right now, requiring a licence and all. The typeface is also kind of messy; the narrow glyphs need work IMO.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 28, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 28, 2018, 06:02:32 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on March 28, 2018, 10:21:30 PM
And there are people that want to give them access to Helvetica and Franklin Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2018, 10:35:42 PM
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 28, 2018, 11:07:17 PM
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.

I'm down for Impact or Papyrus.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Big John on March 28, 2018, 11:15:48 PM
Maybe they should be allowed to erect signage in Webdings.
Some symbolic signs are also webdings characters.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on March 28, 2018, 11:44:08 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on March 28, 2018, 11:56:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on March 29, 2018, 08:33:31 AM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on March 29, 2018, 09:42:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2018, 10:30:46 AM
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.

It still boggles my mind they never bothered to replace that sign.

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.

Interesting to see you participate in some off-topic sarcasm. :-P
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on March 29, 2018, 01:59:08 PM
I think the FHWA should focus on making sure the layout of the sign is correct and set minimum standards for legibility. Having just driven I-75 through Georgia, I find the old D Georgia signs easier to read than Clearview and actually easier to read at night than Series E(m). GDOT should have been allowed to continue with D Georgia.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 01, 2018, 03:10:11 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 01, 2018, 11:58:14 AM
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?

I have a close up of the sign here on Facebook (my photo): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211249682734652&set=ms.c.eJxVUcsNA1AI2qh5KIruv1jjpaFXgsgHL4Dg9vQrKuuDHxKZbIYhQLLhSENUjiEz4Dw6J0UxHeFSbEMUoNqvQsku~%3BxV1fuR~_3rIB18mk2jliUXqGrJITzslettxPDtha1ylR8hS8NsZ1~_MAeTzH3fb3VOZ31xrhJPdeZBrX~_HbcFnFO3FzwXrrG~%3BXHXrwD1HLJveWMVS6C8DrGkM.bps.a.10211249680774603.1073741840.1136647920&type=3&theater

On second look it's sticker-type decals from two different bins.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: GenExpwy on April 04, 2018, 06:46:00 PM
I've just been lurking around a typography board (one where some big names in typography chat), and found two Clearview threads:

http://typedrawers.com/discussion/1349/bad-news-for-clearview  [2016 thread on revoking the IA, with recent updates]

http://typedrawers.com/discussion/2639/good-news-for-clearview  [new thread on restoring the IA]

James Montalbano, who evidently designed Clearview for Meeker, says this is the reason why the IA was reinstated:
Quote
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.

In the 2016 thread he said:
Quote
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.
Quote
To point to the license fees for font software as the reason for its demise is bullshit.

(To which Ray Larabie replied:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 04, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on April 04, 2018, 10:16:07 PM
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.

It's highly unlikely you'll ever get 100% participation from every state. Some are leaders, some are followers, some are penny-pinchers, and some will be taken kicking & screaming into any decisions.

Frankly, I think the whole project should be scrapped and started over from scratch. But since private money (and the potential for profit), and now politicians are involved, that will never happen. Instead of reaching a truly scientific decision, we'll end up with the "best" the courts can decide.

The idea of a clearer font has merit, but Clearview isn't the silver bullet, at least in its current form. Similarly, the FHWA fonts could be modified to fix its flaws. Series E Modified is proof that the fonts aren't static and written in stone.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 05, 2018, 08:45:27 AM

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... 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 05, 2018, 10:35:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 05, 2018, 11:34:48 AM
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'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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on April 05, 2018, 12:24:16 PM
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'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.

Which is why it would be far more time and cost-effective to fix the stroke width and counter space in the problematic letters a, e, and o, and add a "serif" to the capital letter I in the FHWA series.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 05, 2018, 12:27:28 PM
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.

That is the question I was trying to answer.  I believe it is generally accepted that there is a maximum unit legibility for a given combination of population visual acuity, layout (space padding affects readability), illumination ratios, etc.  I also strongly suspect that Series E Modified and Clearview 5-W are close to this maximum unit legibility for the combinations that are likely to be encountered in practice--at least close enough that it is justifiable to use the former instead of the latter despite slightly worse legibility performance if it will result in better outputs from the total system for designing, fabricating, erecting, and maintaining signs.

As I have said before in multiple forums, including at least once upthread, there is little to be gained from changing to a new typeface--whether it be Clearview or something else--outside of a systematic approach to legibility management that is currently absent.  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, there are other, more subtle choices designers have to make, such as which alphabet series to use in shields, for which there is no systematically disseminated human-factors guidance.  We do not even have nominal unit legibilities for the mixed-case FHWA series other than Series E Modified, for example.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2018, 10:26:07 PM
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...

As you might have seen if you wander into the Signs With Design Errors thread, OkDOT appears to roll with more of a "hold my beer" approach to guide signing.
(https://i.imgur.com/5DgirqM.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 05, 2018, 11:43:25 PM
Nope, it's a legitimate Series B 6, but it's horizontally stretched to C width.

The X, on the other hand, is upside down.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 06, 2018, 11:10:27 AM
Why is it posted as Exit 106 when mile marker 107 is located within the exit limits?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 06, 2018, 01:10:11 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 06, 2018, 01:24:42 PM
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.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority does the same (with one exception).  If a crossing street with an exit is between, say, MM 21 and MM 22, it gets "Exit 21".

The Illinois Department of Transportation seems to round down from N.49 and up from N.50 to the nearest whole MM for the exit number.  hence, a crossing street with an exit below MM 21.49 will be "Exit 21", and above MM 21.50 will be "Exit 22".
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 06, 2018, 01:45:36 PM
When was there a ban on Series B?  There was a narrower Series A that has since been taken out of contention.

There has never been a general ban on Series B.  However, back in the days when Series E Modified was the only mixed-case alphabet series, Series B could not be used for primary destination legend on freeway guide signs because that is required to be in mixed-case.  This also applied to Series C, D, E, and F since they likewise did not have lowercase letters, but I picked Series B as an example because it is the thinnest series in current use and thus the most clearly inappropriate for the freeway guide signing application.

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.

Digits in route shields are a separate issue.  I contend there should be a legibility floor, such that (e.g.) the digits in a four-digit guide-sign secondary state route shield in Virginia are no harder to read than the digits in a Texas guide-sign FM route marker with arbitrary digit count.  Of course this is not currently true, because Virginia uses a circle no matter what (forcing Series B), while TxDOT allows the width of the shield to expand so that Series D digits at the appropriate height will fit.

I think states should be forced to redesign their markers as needed to ensure this legibility floor is met.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 06, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on April 06, 2018, 08:26:07 PM
Some agencies (I'm looking at you DRPA) have also used Series B numerals for 3-digit US shields as well.

Ah, but are they using Series B and then additionally compressing it to 80% width?

(http://ten93.com/2016/ga12.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brian556 on April 16, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
This came across my news feed today saying approval for Clearview has been reinstated:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/ia5_reinstatement.pdf (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/ia5_reinstatement.pdf)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on April 16, 2018, 11:43:02 AM
Interesting:
Quote
How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
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.
source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 16, 2018, 07:34:39 PM
I wonder which agencies will reinstate it.  I can potentially see VDOT reinstating it, following the strict guidelines that they adopted in 2014.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 17, 2018, 02:41:25 AM
Interesting:
Quote
How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
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.
source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 17, 2018, 03:34:47 AM
I would imagine there are some agencies reluctant to get on the Clearview train because they just swapped everything over to FHWA Series, and now they have to swap again, and what happens if the IA gets canned again? Worst case scenario, it could morph into a less controversial version of Mexico City Policy, where each incoming administration changes the policy back to the way it was the last time a member of their party was in the Oval Office.

That, and the fact that some states were abandoning Clearview even before the IA was rescinded, makes me think that there are only a select few states (chiefly Texas) that are actually interested in pursuing this.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 17, 2018, 07:18:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 17, 2018, 09:17:03 AM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 17, 2018, 10:23:09 AM
"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.

Internationally, the recent experience with new typefaces has been mixed.  Here's the scorecard, to the best of my current knowledge:

*  US, Canada--FHWA series to Clearview (adopted in US on optional basis, rejected, adopted again)

*  Austria--Traffic Austria typeface to Typeface TERN (no option to continue using old typeface)

*  Switzerland--VSS typefaces to ASTRA-Frutiger (no option to continue using old typeface)

*  Netherlands--FHWA series to ANWB typefaces and back to FHWA series

*  Spain--Series E Modified/old L series to Autopista (very similar to Series E Modified)/Carretera Convencional to Carretera Convencional only (old typeface used/current typefaces used in accord with old policy even in recent proyectos de construcción even when such usage does not conform with current policy--probably an artifact of proyectos sitting on the shelves for years without updating)

*  Chile--FHWA series to RutaCL series (but typeface option policy allows use of both)

RutaCL has not been discussed on this forum before.  CONASET (a Chilean government agency responsible for maintaining the Chilean MUTCD equivalent) makes both TrueType versions of the fonts themselves and an AutoCAD bolt-on for sign design available free of charge.

CONASET download page (https://www.conaset.cl/manualsenalizacion/construye.html)

In appearance it is highly reminiscent of "typewriter Gothic" with a mullet on lowercase i and, like Clearview and the Transport typefaces, a curved tail on lowercase l.  I am betting that opinions on it on this forum will be just as divided as they are for Clearview.  I personally like it less than Clearview, but its digits are clearly superior to Clearview's in terms of legibility.  A casual Google search turns up a research literature mostly in Spanish claiming improvements over the FHWA series (a reduced subset of which is used in Chile--I think just Series D, Series E Modified, and maybe Series E), though I am going just by Google search snippets and have not yet attempted article downloads.  In principle the FHWA series continue to be an option for signs in Chile, but in the construction drawings I have so far downloaded from the Chilean government's public tender portal, I see the two RutaCL typefaces used exclusively for designable guide signs, with FHWA hanging on for standard signs (mainly warning and regulatory signs) and kilometerposts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on April 17, 2018, 10:41:29 AM
Quote
VDOT will likely pursue a return to Clearview
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 11:48:01 AM
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. 

When IA was initially revoked; contract drawings already showing Clearview were mostly grandfathered in (still approved).  I would assume that a similar but opposite approach would happen should a state DOT reintroduce usage of the Clearview font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 17, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 17, 2018, 12:31:57 PM
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).

Define "the feds."

This isn't on FHWA. They were directed to reinstate the approval for the use of Clearview by Congress.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 17, 2018, 12:41:49 PM
Interesting:
Quote
How long will the Interim Approval be valid?
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.
source (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5/faq/index.htm)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 17, 2018, 05:13:25 PM
I'm wondering if FHWA figured that doing it this way was the best change to avoid Congress butting in again.

Certainly possible. And them removing the IA again would just put them right back where they were before. I would not be surprised if Clearview persists as an interim approval until another experimental typeface comes along, even if that's ten years down the road. Unless IA's automatically expire after a certain length of time?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 17, 2018, 07:33:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on April 17, 2018, 08:37:54 PM
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).

Not the feds so much as Tex-ass.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on April 17, 2018, 10:31:26 PM
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.

At this point, as long as political lobbying still exists, and the Texas Transportation Institute does as well, Clearview will probably stick around.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 17, 2018, 11:35:16 PM
I think Clearview is pretty much it for experimental typefaces with new glyphs.  Even the claimed benefits were micro at best, for macro hassle, and the whole debacle with badly composed signs and the on-off-on interim approval will tell any prudent state DOT to steer clear.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on April 17, 2018, 11:55:21 PM
Badly composed signs isn't the fault of the typeface, but the fault of misinformed or misguided (or worse: careless) contractors/fabricators/state workers. West Virginia can erect great Clearview signs consistently. But Pennsylvania? Pfft.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 18, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
So, I found this (http://fontsgeek.com/fonts/Clearview-Hwy) if anyone is interested in using it for their guide sign illustrations and/or modelling.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 18, 2018, 06:55:39 AM
"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.

My thoughts on this are similar to yours. I included the Mexico City Policy as an absolute worst case scenario–people would have to care about road sign typefaces enough to justify such a thing, and that's not going to happen.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on April 18, 2018, 01:03:18 PM
Of the local cities and towns here in the Phoenix area, I don't see Gilbert reintroducing Clearview since they just introduced their illuminated street blades with the town logo on the upper left and they are in FHWA.  I don't see them redesigning them immediately after introducing these new street blades.

Phoenix stuck with Clearview for its illuminated street blades for quite a while, however, there is one report of a new installation with illuminated street blades that are not in Clearview.  I am not sure if this is now standard Phoenix practice or if this may have been a contractor error.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 18, 2018, 01:07:25 PM
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.  This could be done through a standalone private bill, or through a local and private clause in a public general bill.  Private bills are nowadays used more or less exclusively for immigration matters, but precedents for local and private clauses in public general bills include the clause in the STAA of 1982 cancelling the Somerset Freeway in New Jersey, or the clause in a later piece of 1980's legislation authorizing FHWA to pay 100% of the construction cost for I-287 in New Jersey.  The law review literature suggests that private bills are constitutionally sound as long as they provide a benefit to a particular party instead of taking a benefit away from that party, which would be deprivation without due process of law and would probably be open to challenge under either substantive due process or the bill of attainder clause in the Constitution.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 18, 2018, 05:21:49 PM
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 06:12:47 PM
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 18, 2018, 06:29:16 PM
No–but I'm operating under the assumption that most districts in Texas will remain elephants, and thus be sidelined should donkeys take the House. Sam Johnson (R), sponsor of the pro-Clearview SIGN Act, represents an R+13 district* (TX-3), and thus under normal circumstances would be a relatively safe bet for re-election. R+13 is fairly mild for Texas–there are a large number of districts that are rated R+20 or better (even a few in the 30s).

That being said, this may be a faulty assumption. This is shaping up to be a really weird midterm, for a number of reasons not within the forum's remit.

*This number refers to an index called the Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI). The PVI represents the district's "default" swing–that is, if you were to run a generic Democrat versus a generic Republican in a vacuum, you would expect a Republican to win an R+13 district by 13 points.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 18, 2018, 07:21:38 PM
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.

Many commenters in this thread have been saying "Money talks," but where is the proof?  Where would the money come from?  Clearview licenses for TxDOT's HQ, 26 districts, and maybe 20-30 of the frequent-flyer consultants still barely break $50,000 (assuming a cost of $800 per license).  This is a one-time cost and the money will have been spent long ago.

My theory that TxDOT does not want to run a "mixed font" system is based on the empirical observation that other Clearview adopters, such as Michigan DOT, staged a large number of sign replacements (covering, in some cases, recently replaced signs) with the apparent object of clearing guide signs with the FHWA series from entire corridors.  If TxDOT is forced to give up Clearview now, it will be running a mixed system for about 10-15 years, since it will be doing a significant amount of new construction as well as a background level of sign replacement from now until about 2025-2030 when Clearview signs installed as part of the early-noughties retroreflective sheeting upgrade come to the end of their service lives.

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.

My thinking is that even with a less gerrymandered district map, Texas will have very few safe Democratic seats, especially outside urban areas, and thus it will be appealing to Democrats to back a measure that can be painted as saving the state money while maintaining the uniform appearance of guide signing within Texas.  Probably the most enduringly bipartisan sentiment among Texans is Mit uns ist alles immer besser.

Quote
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.

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.

The legislation could be written to include Virginia.  But we will have to see what stance VDOT takes--notwithstanding what my sources say, I doubt they will want to be fooled twice.  Its consultants also really struggled to produce Clearview signing plans that were not schlock (placeholder fonts used instead of actual Clearview) long after Clearview had bedded in.

It is not like there is no precedent for ignoring glaring excursions from conformity.  The thirty-year lack of exit numbering in California comes to mind.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 18, 2018, 07:33:13 PM
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. For now and the near future, Clearview has returned and will be used by those agencies that desire to do so.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 18, 2018, 10:24:48 PM
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'm inclined to agree. As I mentioned above, if the 116th Congress goes looking for a fight with the executive branch, they will have enough potential points of conflict that it's doubtful anything USDOT does is going to be a very high priority.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 18, 2018, 11:25:54 PM
There are a few difficulties with the "Congress does not concern itself with small issues" argument:

*  Riders.

*  TxDOT (very large agency).

I agree this issue won't hit the floor in the House or the Senate, but that is as far as I go.  I suspect a group of staffers of comparatively high rank will end up brokering a compromise if TxDOT and FHWA cannot resolve their differences.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 19, 2018, 02:47:45 AM
You're right, of course, but with the 116th Congress specifically there will be the potential to be a number of extremely high-profile issues sucking unusual amounts of air out of the room. It is hard to imagine anyone, even the Texas delegation, caring about any issue TxDOT has in the wake of something like, say, a final Mueller Report being released. Depending on its contents, it may be hard to find an actual bill to even attach a rider to for a while.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on April 20, 2018, 12:05:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 12:12:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 20, 2018, 01:21:43 PM
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–but they can use it as political leverage to get favorable language in a bill. They might also 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 01:29:57 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 20, 2018, 01:37:14 PM
Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on April 20, 2018, 02:26:21 PM
Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)

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.
More like below threshold of any Congress priorities...  Strange that it made it into the law..
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 03:20:26 PM
Right, which is why I talked about campaign contributions. (There are other forms of influence, too, but I digress.)

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.
More like below threshold of any Congress priorities...  Strange that it made it into the law.
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. 

A repeal of the Wright Amendment would be signed in 2006 and the flight restrictions were phased out by 2014.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 23, 2018, 08:13:22 PM
Wow, what a lot of activity in this thread since I last looked up the AA forums! 

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.  I'd really rather prefer the "fixed" versions of FHWA Highway Gothic that I've seen over the years.

Now regarding this post:

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.

Okay, I live out in the west now, but I was born in Rockford, Illinois and have done a lot of travelling there over the years.  While I don't currenly travel much beyond my rather long work commute these days, I appreciate this report from my "home turf"!

Highway Gothic Forever!  hah.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 23, 2018, 09:39:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on April 23, 2018, 10:23:49 PM
LOL, or do you mean "unseen to be believed"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2018, 08:19:18 AM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on April 24, 2018, 12:30:44 PM
Does this violate any part of the MUTCD? Can this be court challenged?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 24, 2018, 05:05:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 25, 2018, 02:26:13 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2018, 09:50:39 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on April 25, 2018, 10:39:33 AM
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).

I thought the same when I found that my late father, who was having worse and worse trouble with eyesight and stopped driving at the first sign of any issue with his eyes, said one time when we were in California how much easier the button copy signs were to read at night, even the ones without lighting, because the newer fully-reflective ones were essentially blobs of reflection, whereas the button copy signs with nonreflective backgrounds allowed the letters to show easily.  He noticed especially because the signs at home in Mass. were generally fully-reflective and thus generally harder for him to read.

The border color reflection being keyed to the sign color is a neat idea.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on April 25, 2018, 11:59:16 AM
Out of curiosity, do you happen to know why that rule was enacted?

Here is the rationale, as given in a 1998 NPA (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/texts/NPA/98_3644.htm) issued as part of the multi-phase rulemaking that resulted in the Millennium MUTCD:

Quote from: FHWA, in Docket FHWA-98-3644
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.

Previously, there was a whole-signface retroreflectorization requirement that applied only to warning and regulatory signs.  I think it was introduced in the 1971 MUTCD because that is when the contrast option disappeared in California (previously, agencies could choose white on black or black on white for many regulatory signs, white on black typically having button reflectors for the significant elements of the message while black on white had whole-signface retroreflectorization).  The Millennium Edition change extended the whole-signface retroreflectorization requirement to guide signs, for which reflectivity requirements had previously been specified by sign type or sign group in the Chapter 2 guide signing subchapters.

Some agencies opted to develop contrast to facilitate sign reading by using brighter sheeting for foreground elements--Arizona DOT, for example, at one point used super engineer-grade for the green background and high-intensity or microprismatic for white lettering.  Others, like Kansas DOT, have had satisfactory results with microprismatic sheeting for all sign elements.  Gene Hawkins' group at TTI also did research into the rotational sensitivity of sign sheetings that showed that the amount of light reflected back from certain sheetings varied as they were turned through a full circle.

The real problem with the Thruway signs is that the agency's approach to signing in general is slapdash, as is the case with many toll agencies.  This is also true of the Ohio Turnpike, Illinois Tollway, and Kansas Turnpike, though not the Texas urban toll road operators or the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes.  Signs look dilapidated, use house typefaces that only vaguely resemble the FHWA series, and are badly composed with either too much or too little padding between foreground elements.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2018, 01:21:45 PM
Heck, the Thruway knows they have a reflective problem on the letters already.  Years ago, they ordered the wrong type of sheeting for their sign shop.  Instead of ordering the right sheeting and getting rid of the stuff they shouldn't have ordered, however, they're using it until it runs out.

As for toll authorities, the slapdash nature of signage gets even worse with authorities that maintain bridges but not roads.  Much of the MTA's signage was absolutely atrocious and looked like it came from a third-world country, though thankfully their newer signage is significantly improved (maybe someone there finally discovered this thing called the MUTCD).  The Bridge Authority can have odd signage too (and extraordinarily low speed limits to go with it; the Mid-Hudson is 25 all the way from US 9W to US 9, where the speed limit goes up entering Poughkeepsie; it should be 30 on the bridge and 40 on the mile-long, four-lane, limited access approach road).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: US 89 on May 05, 2018, 09:50:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 05, 2018, 11:16:34 AM
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.

Looks a lot like the how-not-to examples FHWA posted on their FAQ.  Most of the bad examples of dark Clearview on a light background seemed to come from Maryland or Virginia; this one would be good for them to add.

This kind of example shows a problem with Clearview: that some agencies or contractors don't care enough to read the whole IA or FAQ or anything, and just go with Clearview everywhere.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 07, 2018, 08:59:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on May 07, 2018, 10:37:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on May 07, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on May 07, 2018, 11:04:02 AM
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.
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.
Thanks for the correction! I honestly thought it was Chemicals, but I shall get informed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 07, 2018, 01:09:18 PM
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"?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on May 07, 2018, 01:56:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 07, 2018, 02:00:25 PM
Thanks! I'm not certain this is as much of a font issue, then, as much of a problem with spacing, wordiness, and the lack of symbols.

It would be easier to have a sign panel that reads:

LEGACY PARKWAY
TRUCKS 5+ AXLES
40+ TONS RGVW

Omit the awkward RGVW spacing, add appropriate context for the pluses, and now the text is scannable.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 05:57:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2018, 06:22:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 07:46:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2018, 08:31:11 PM
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.

Was the knocked-down sign in Clearview or FHWA?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2018, 08:57:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 19, 2018, 09:04:46 PM
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.

I see. It's possible the sign was replaced using identical plan sheets from the original sign (with no thought given to the typeface). I'm not certain I am using the correct terms there, but I think you know what I mean.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 20, 2018, 12:56:37 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 20, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
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).

It is in fact a Macomb County contract--50061-117578, let March 16, 2018, covering I-696 from I-275 to I-94.  The signing plans aren't actually in the main roadway plans set.  Michigan DOT is experimenting with rollplots in construction document packages (not uncommon for construction documents in European countries like France and Germany, but almost unknown in the US and not really encouraged under FAPG 630(b) Supplement), so the signing for this contract is all in one rollplot, with the SignCAD detail for the sign to be replaced (I think there may be just one or two in this contract) off to one side.  Series E Modified is used.

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.

Another data point is a small-signs replacement contract for the Upper Peninsula, 66012-126586, let last May 4, which uses Clearview for all positive-contrast signs.  While it does seem like Michigan DOT has gone back to Clearview and indeed went back before the FHWA reinstatement memo was issued, there are a couple of caveats to keep in mind.  We don't know how long the plans for these projects were sitting on the shelf, and the time from design to fabrication and erection tends to be less for knockdown replacements and other ad hoc jobs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MASTERNC on May 20, 2018, 03:28:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on May 21, 2018, 09:14:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MASTERNC on May 21, 2018, 09:05:43 PM
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.

Here is my sticker - the year looks like Clearview

(https://preview.ibb.co/kggBmT/IMG_0642.jpg) (https://ibb.co/chHTY8)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 21, 2018, 10:03:50 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on May 22, 2018, 01:40:52 PM
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.

Example of the current 18/19 PA inspection stickers with the 18 exposed:
(http://www.bufs-plates.com/windshield/pennsylvania/pa-windshield-both-0918.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 05, 2018, 01:57:01 PM
Just to add to the exchange upthread (May 20-22) dealing with Clearview in Michigan:  Michigan DOT recently let another really large contract, covering I-94 in and around Jackson, with dozens of pages of sign panel detail sheets, all of which use the FHWA alphabet series (E Modified for large panel signs).

The contract in question is 38101-115861 and was Call 31 in the June 1, 2018 letting.  My Michigan DOT shootlist maker estimates it has about 33,222 SF of sign panel.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 05, 2018, 05:05:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 05, 2018, 05:37:32 PM
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?

That assumption is correct.  The underlining (for which, if memory serves, the house term was "divider bar") has not been part of MDOT standards for over a decade now, and field examples are getting rarer and rarer.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on June 05, 2018, 06:41:11 PM
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on June 06, 2018, 12:35:55 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Takumi on June 06, 2018, 05:49:04 PM
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview_Highway_Font_Lettering.pdf
:banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on June 06, 2018, 06:42:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on June 06, 2018, 07:35:18 PM
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.

I think it would have been far easier to just state what you can use Clearview for.  :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 06, 2018, 09:35:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on June 06, 2018, 09:41:44 PM
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.), 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 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: HTM Duke on June 07, 2018, 03:05:41 AM
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
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)
:banghead: :banghead:

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on June 07, 2018, 06:19:09 AM
VA at least got it right, eventually.  A lot of the newer signage in Richmond (I-295 at I-64 and I-64W at I-95S for instance) properly used Clearview, just for the mixed case legends.  From the PDF we saw, the design for the 33/250 sign at least continues this practice, and this is coming from an ardent anti-Clearview person, as my signature shows.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on June 07, 2018, 08:10:53 AM
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. 

I have to admit, I don't see what the problem is with this one. I don't particularly love the horizontal divider in the middle, but I understand why it's there (an artifact of "Gloucester Pkwy" being written on two lines instead of one), and that's hardly Clearview-specific. I guess technically the distance message at the bottom is still supposed to be FHWA, but...meh. Even as a non-Clearview-fan, I can't really find anything to complain about here.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 07, 2018, 09:09:15 AM
I decided long ago that I would not criticize an agency for failing to conform 100% to FHWA's most recent guidance on Clearview usage (Clearview only for primary destination legend) as long as the "large caps" problem was absent, Clearview did not appear in route shields or in negative contrast, and the signs otherwise had the appropriate amount of space padding around legend elements.  From this standpoint, both the Gloucester Parkway sign and the more recent VDOT signs linked to above are acceptable.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on June 07, 2018, 09:25:08 AM
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.
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.

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).

The recent New York maskings over Trenton legends for the various I-95 northbound ramp signage in Philly (from I-676 northward) have all been in Highway Gothic regardless of what font the Trenton legends were (many of the newer installs were in Clearview).

The recent signage updates along PA 420, north of I-95 include LGS' using Series D at the US 13/Chester Pike intersection.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 07, 2018, 10:14:36 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on June 07, 2018, 10:38:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on June 07, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
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.

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.
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on June 07, 2018, 12:54:16 PM
As regards Pennsylvania, I don't think PennDOT has its heart set on Clearview anymore now that Art Breneman (longtime traffic engineering coordinator and a big Clearview booster) has retired.

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 think those agencies are going to end up forming a minority among those that used Clearview, just because the FHWA series are already in the MUTCD and are thus less vulnerable to a mandated phaseout at some point in the future.  Exploiting sunk cost is one thing; throwing good money after bad is another.

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.

I don't know.  That might be the case for some agencies, but I think it could also be a constellation of software integration issues, including failure to use the correct signcad.rsc file with SignCAD.  Ohio DOT District 6 (Columbus), for example, recently did very extensive sign replacements through a series of design-builds, for which the design-builders used SignCAD, and on the plan sheets themselves the signs were plotted using a variety of placeholder fonts, including a generic Helvetica-like font (same problem as VDOT) or mixed-case Series D with gaptooth kerning (very occasionally seen with TxDOT and Arizona DOT, probably a result of signcad.rsc mismatch).  However, the deliverables for these projects included sets of sign shop drawings, all produced directly in SignCAD and not ported to a separate CAD application, and these had no font substitutions whatsoever.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on June 07, 2018, 01:30:23 PM
Confirmed here that VDOT has re-adopted Clearview:
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)
:banghead: :banghead:

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.
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.

For those that doubt me on such; there were a couple of either AL or GA 255 shields on BGS' (posted in another thread) that have the same over-spacing.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on June 07, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
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'm not so sure.  All new ISTHA signage has been FHWA, and they were a big user of Clearview, even before it showed up on IDOT signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on June 07, 2018, 08:34:24 PM

I believe NYSTA switched back for reasons unrelated to the IA being pulled, so they hopefully won't go back.


Yes, the NYSTA did switch back before the IA was pulled because of motorist feedback they were receiving. I know NYSDOT never planned on intentionally switching to Clearview (CorCraft signs notwithstanding); maybe NYSDOT put some pressure on NYSTA to knock it off or something.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on June 08, 2018, 08:38:55 AM



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?

Heh.  I don't know.  I doubt it; the experience I spoke of was very project specific.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on June 08, 2018, 09:38:29 AM
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.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 08, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
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.)

KYTC recently upgraded to a new(er) version of SharePoint, and the new look of the site has been optimized for mobile users. And I can vouch for the fact that ADA compliance is being emphasized in the new rollout. Now if some of us page maintainers can remember to type in alternate text for images. It's the one thing I never remember to do.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on June 09, 2018, 12:25:42 AM
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.)
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on June 09, 2018, 09:50:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on July 18, 2018, 11:30:01 AM
I was in a training class yesterday and one of the presenters was from the KYTC Division of Traffic Operations. 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 12:04:11 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on July 18, 2018, 04:40:24 PM
ADOT still has not re-adopted Clearview.  New APL signage has gone up on US 60 WB in Tempe, and it is still in FHWA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 18, 2018, 08:27:27 PM
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)
Looking at those signs, I think that upsizing might be the main determinant in whether I think a Clearview sign looks decent or ugly.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 18, 2018, 09:30:37 PM
Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

(https://i.imgur.com/thULdTQ.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on July 18, 2018, 10:05:07 PM
Malproportionately large text looks bad no matter what font it's in.

I guess I've just gotten used to it, because that's the actual standard in Georgia now. This, for instance, is a perfectly compliant installation:

(http://ten93.com/roadphotos/i85n_exit149.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 11:51:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 01:16:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 01:56:23 PM
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.
The larger text height in this sign upgrade in Delaware was no accident.

New signs as of Sept. 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8179786,-75.4517789,3a,75y,221.37h,81.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIdj_YXdGdHGRwdYgA3QgJw!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

Previous signs from one year earlier (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8179929,-75.4517799,3a,75y,221.37h,81.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLZ974O6Y1bAn9OV-5tc8Vg!2e0!5s20160901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

Similar sign changes along I-495 & I-95 in yielded this result more often than not.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 01:59:19 PM
^^
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2018, 02:30:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 02:37:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 03:10:31 PM
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.

I don't like oversized text, period. I think both look like crap. Then again, I don't hate Clearview like some, so I'm more lenient.

BC seems to do it right (minus the small cardinal directions):

(https://i.imgur.com/X9k2Hrz.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on July 19, 2018, 03:13:59 PM
The signs in Georgia with 20 in capital letter height are purposely designed that way.  After its experiment with replacing 16 in UC/12 in LC Series E Modified (generally button copy) with 20 in UC/15 in LC "D Georgia" (all retroreflective sheeting) failed, GDOT opted to bite the bullet and go back to Series E Modified, but one size larger, replacing many ground-mounted signs with signs mounted on balanced cantilever trusses to reduce the likelihood of obscuration by large trucks.  Space padding on the new signs is generally quite good except at the vertical edges, where they are being parsimonious in what I take to be an effort to reduce wind load.

20 in UC is already the norm for rural ground-mounted guide signs in many jurisdictions, e.g. Minnesota.  I don't really object, though my preference is for other sign elements, such as exit tabs, route shields, and "small caps" legend to be also made larger.  I don't know why PennDOT is using 20 in UC in spot locations.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 04:57:07 PM
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

The issue I was raising regarding text heights has absolutely nothing to do with the sign-making programs per say but rather what's in the written sign specs./standards.  Also keep in mind that the FHWA Highway Gothic fonts existed long before CAD and sign-making programs came to be.  The sizing of the letters/numerals and the spacings for such were originally calculated by hand.

That said, one can conceivably design a highway sign without using computer programs as long as they have a set of sign specs. & spacing standards available.  I'm sure a similar manual for the Clearview font has existed for some time as well.

Even when a sign program is used; if an agency specifies 16-inch high lettering for control city legends on its highway signs, then the designer needs to use/input that height for said-design regardless of the selected font.

That said, the switch to 18" or 20" lettering by either a designer or fabricator is indeed deliberate/intentional.  Whether that intention was actually initiated by an actual agency like Georgia per J N Winkler's example or a rogue designer or fabricator in other states is not fully known.

Nonetheless & as previously stated, if the reason for the Clearview font's very existence was for readability; then why upsize it? 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on July 19, 2018, 05:24:53 PM
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.

As someone who has used both of the major sign making programs, what is described here is least likely to cause issues with the software. Output/plan sheet issues are almost always the issue of the person sitting behind the keyboard and/or Q/C person or the sign manufacturer.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
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

Well too bad, bud. I don't have the answer for everything. All I know is what I've heard, and apparently I heard wrong.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on July 24, 2018, 02:28:21 AM
Sounds like a clear dim 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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on July 24, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
Sounds like a clear dim 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)
IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 24, 2018, 09:12:28 PM
Sounds like a clear dim 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)
IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?

That's called Enhanced E Modified. One study involving it did show that, but more independent studies should be done to verify.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on July 25, 2018, 09:45:56 AM
Sounds like a clear dim 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)
IIRC, didn't studies find that Series E with Series EM kerning was better than both Series EM and Clearview in terms of legibility?

That's called Enhanced E Modified. One study involving it did show that, but more independent studies should be done to verify.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 06, 2018, 12:14:03 AM
This list needs to be updated:

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

Arizona is no longer using Clearview at the state level (even though the interim approval was reinstated), although some local agencies are using it.  Apparently the City of Phoenix never stopped using it on their illuminated street blades.  I actually wonder if Maricopa County DOT has starting using it again as well; they apparently made a big deal about the interim approval being rescinded and complained that that by rescinding the interim approval it will have a negative impact on older drivers.  I can't confirm, but possibly the City of Chandler might be using it again as well, since I think I saw new Clearview street blades in new neighborhoods.  Mesa and Gilbert as far as I know are not using it; new installs continue to use FHWA from what I have seen.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on August 06, 2018, 05:32:20 AM
Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview?  Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on August 06, 2018, 07:50:13 AM
This list needs to be updated:

https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

Since it looks like this list includes use by cities/counties: While GDOT doesn't use it and has no plans to, Clearview can be found on overhead street signs in Snellville (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8575816,-84.0199363,3a,75y,11.64h,101.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQpkxumcyMW-ycOeehzDQIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at least along US 78 (though not on ground-mounted ones, which are done by Gwinnett County). Tourist wayfinding signs in Atlanta (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7704954,-84.3850392,3a,37.5y,20.61h,94.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYyEogKXlIi9kJHF27yV9EA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) also use it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 06, 2018, 10:22:54 AM
Speaking of, where does South Dakota use Clearview?  Every new sign I've seen in the state uses Em.

I collect SDDOT signing plans and they do include some Clearview, but only for street name signs/traffic signal mast arm signs.  My guess is that SD is counted as Yes solely on the basis of local agency use of Clearview that is never seen in SDDOT plans sets except in cases where SDDOT carries out work on locally maintained roads as part of a state highway project and matches the signing for them to local agency standards.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on August 07, 2018, 05:53:05 AM
That's like NC then.  Only in a few places (mostly city street guide signs, not BGS') does NC use Clearview.  The NC 8 exit off I-85 is a fluke.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on August 13, 2018, 12:41:12 AM
Does anyone know for sure the status of Clearview in Pennsylvania, with PennDOT or the PTC? New signs are still FHWA it seems, but it took a while for the switch back to FHWA to completely go through the first time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 13, 2018, 11:30:05 AM
PennDOT has gone back to Series E Modified and is sticking with it.  Two weeks ago my script pulled in 38 pattern-accurate signing sheets just for ECMS 93444 (a Philadelphia-area US 1 improvement) and everything used the FHWA series.  I still see Clearview in some projects, but those are all smaller jobs of the kind that are kept on the shelf for use as gap filler in lettings.  Clearview by itself on a signing sheet (no adjacent sign drawings using FHWA series) is becoming rarer and rarer.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 13, 2018, 12:04:27 PM
I recently saw new signs on new signal masts on an MCDOT maintained intersection at Power Road and Elliot Road at the Gilbert/Mesa border, and they are still in FHWA.  I'm surprised MCDOT hasn't switched back to Clearview considering they made a big deal about the FHWA rescinding the interim approval.  However, since these signs were installed alongside new signal masts (replacing the existing very old signal masts), it is possible that the contract for these signs went out before the interim approval was reinstated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 02:14:17 PM
I believe only KY, TX & VA have presently indicated that they will be reinstating IA use of Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 13, 2018, 02:20:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 02:49:51 PM
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 was specifically referring to state DOT agencies.  Cities tend to make their own rules regarding what to use.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on August 13, 2018, 04:43:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 13, 2018, 10:13:51 PM
Have they said anything to the effect, or have they just not yet started using Clearview again?

The latest edition of Publication 46 (PennDOT's traffic engineering manual) dates from 2014, well before revocation of the Clearview IA.  If PennDOT has any other guidance on traffic sign typefaces or confection of guide sign designs more generally, it seems not to be on their public-facing website or retrievable through Google search.  I go by what I see in construction plans on ECMS.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on August 13, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
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. 

IMO, Clearview's use at the local level for things like street blades and street name signs on traffic signals isn't any indication of an increased use of the typeface because I'm used to seeing a whole variety of non-FHWA fonts from Helvetica to Bookman to even Clearview being used on street blades in my local area.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 14, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
Bodl emphasis added:
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.
The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on August 14, 2018, 03:54:53 PM
Bodl emphasis added:
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.
The answer to your question is in one of the above-nested quotes (in bold).

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2018, 05:15:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 15, 2018, 08:32:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on August 15, 2018, 01:02:26 PM
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.

That's what I figured. I knew I had posted it somewhere, but couldn't remember if it was Facebook or here.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on August 16, 2018, 01:35:53 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/i1pmWAD.png)

Clearview in Sri Lanka?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 16, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
https://i.imgur.com/i1pmWAD.png

Clearview in Sri Lanka?

Wouldn't be the first Asian country to use Clearview. Indonesia and the Philippines both use it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 16, 2018, 01:53:29 PM
Supposedly Israel has standards documents that call for Clearview to be used for Latin text on signs, but all I have ever seen in casual StreetView inspection is a blocky Arial/Helvetica knockoff.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DJStephens on August 19, 2018, 12:22:47 PM
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.

That does seem to be largely correct.  Noticed some recent replacements on the eastern end of the superstition frwy last week, as well as the short frwy section at the florence cutoff - exit 212. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2018, 01:22:19 AM
I thought this was rather funny.

Gray's Harbor County, WA, the first jurisdiction to be denied interim approval for the use of Clearview (way back whenever), was already using Clearview street blades anyway. This is the intersection of two county-maintained roads. The street blades were installed prior to 2014.

(https://i.imgur.com/OsE3c47.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 26, 2018, 03:09:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: myosh_tino on September 26, 2018, 11:16:27 PM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 27, 2018, 12:08:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SD Mapman on September 27, 2018, 12:10:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on September 27, 2018, 09:19:02 AM
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.

That's what happens when they rely solely on spell check.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 09:57:54 AM
"Sings design"  :-D
To 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 sing to my boss per the Post-It note.

Quote from: Britney Spears
Oops, I did it again.
Only in reverse :colorful:

Note: I'm not a fan of Britney Spears but that phrase from one of her songs seemed fitting.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on September 27, 2018, 10:57:51 AM
"Sings design"  :-D
To 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.

I think because of auto-correct and my boss, I've gone numb to typos like that. Ironically, said boss has been on a QA/QC kick lately, yet he's one of the biggest quality offenders, especially when it comes to documents that get sent out to clients.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 27, 2018, 11:54:13 AM
"Sings design"  :-D
To 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on September 27, 2018, 12:44:33 PM
Well, since he says he didn't sign it, he must have sang it!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on September 27, 2018, 01:09:28 PM
"Sings design"  :-D
To 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 was going to say that.  But then I saw the "Last edit" tag and figured he'd done it on purpose.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 01:27:09 PM
^^See edit to my previous post.  My typo was not intentional but would've been a good deliberate prank.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 27, 2018, 05:04:25 PM
If I was going to sing a song about Clearview, it would unlistenable, mostly puking and swearing. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 27, 2018, 07:59:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: freebrickproductions on October 02, 2018, 11:43:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 03, 2018, 05:47:20 AM
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?

Depends if I could rope some coworkers into it... I can think of a few that might go along with it!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on October 11, 2018, 02:52:59 PM
I’m in Utah right now and have seen a total of zero Clearview signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on October 11, 2018, 02:58:01 PM
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

Reminds me of the time many years ago when I was looking for a specific autographed photo of Carole King on eBay.  One of the search results read:  Carole King Photo - Signing Legend.

Mentioned this to my best friend, and he immediately quipped:  Well, maybe she's multi-talented.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 11, 2018, 04:33:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: US 89 on October 13, 2018, 09:15:26 PM
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.

Yes, that's the only road with them, although the Clearview spills over onto the Legacy-related signs on other nearby roads. I know there's a truck restriction sign for Legacy on I-215 that's in Clearview, for example.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tckma on October 15, 2018, 08:49:17 AM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Eth on October 15, 2018, 09:31:47 AM
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

Looks to me like they went ahead and fabricated the exit tab to read "EXITS 32A-B" and have simply covered over the relevant parts until they're needed. So I'd say it's pretty much certain that the hidden text is already in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 12:01:58 PM
Philadelphia Update:

Along I-95 - Northeast Philadelphia, the reconstruction project between Exit 22 (I-676/US 30) & Exit 26 (NJ 90/Aramingo Ave.); a new 2-mile advance-BGS for Exit 22 (I-676/US 30) has been erected with its control cities in Clearview.  My guess is that this BGS was fabricated a while ago but was probably sitting in a PennDOT storage facility until it was erected.

Further north, northbound along the Exit 27/Bridge St. collector-distributor road; both 95 NORTH Trenton pull-through BGS' have been completely replaced with ones bearing New York in Clearview.  Such deviates from other recent signage revisions along I-95 northbound that had New York masks placed on them in Highway Gothic regardless of what font the old Trenton legend was in.

The above begs the question whether or not PennDOT has quietly reinstated Clearview.  These may be just one-offers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 15, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
The above begs the question whether or not PennDOT has quietly reinstated Clearview.  These may be just one-offers.

I continue to monitor ECMS and there was actually one large project in the last tranche that had Clearview.  This was project 76400, part of the expansion of US 15 around Shamokin Dam (Snyder, Union, and Northumberland counties).  However, I can't rule out the possibility that this project was sitting on the shelf for a while.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 18, 2018, 02:24:02 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 21, 2018, 12:23:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on October 21, 2018, 12:26:33 PM
I am a staunch supporter of Clearview font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 21, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
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 pay attention to street blades, mostly in Arizona.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 21, 2018, 01:56:31 PM
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.

Clearview is very much still alive in Texas.  In fact, TxDOT carried right on using Clearview after FHWA revoked the interim approval.  The toll agencies and RMAs all follow the TxMUTCD and SHSD, so there have been few if any noticeable departures from TxDOT practice on their infrastructure.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 04:01:03 PM
As far as Phoenix goes, I have never seen a lighted street blade in the city of Phoenix that wasn't in Clearview.

When I was in Phoenix last December visiting family, I didn't see hardly any signs that weren't Clearview. That extends to speed limit signs as well. Even some stop signs, I think.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on October 21, 2018, 05:41:10 PM
Not looking too good for Pennsylvania. A recently-improved local intersection in Lebanon has Clearview overhead blades.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on October 22, 2018, 10:05:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 22, 2018, 11:17:33 AM
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.  I am reluctant to regard fonts on this type of sign as indicative of the agency's typeface policy, for the following reasons:

*  Traffic signal plans could spend more time on the shelf than plans for major projects.

*  Empirical observation in most states (not just Pennsylvania) reveals that typeface conformity on mast arm signs is typically much poorer than for other types of guide sign.  Local agencies often want to use whatever font looks "cool" and are usually better positioned to get their way than with even D-series guide signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on October 22, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2018, 05:45:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on October 24, 2018, 09:28:51 AM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on October 24, 2018, 11:03:22 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 24, 2018, 11:37:50 AM
How do you get all this?

I have two scripts for PennDOT's ECMS, both of which are wget wrappers.  The first script is a shootlist compiler.  It logs into ECMS using the guest account, makes a list of all projects that have had their bid opening since the last run, pulls the bid item quantity listing for each project, parses it for signing-related quantities, and adds that project to the shootlist if it has more than 400 square feet of sign panel.  (I generally find that when a PennDOT project has signing, the quantities bottom out at 400 SF.  Only about 5%-10% of the projects PennDOT advertises have signing.)  The second script logs back into ECMS using the guest account and then downloads the plans and special provisions for each project on the shootlist.

There are other "helper" scripts.  I have a validator script that sniffs out corrupt PDFs in the download, deletes them, and marks them up on a list, and a recoverer script that uses the list to re-attempt the failed downloads.  These were necessary several years ago when ECMS would choke on downloads fairly often, but its performance has improved considerably and it has been many months (probably over a year) since I last had a dirty download.  To process the signing, I have a script set that uses robocopy to copy over signing-related files ("Signing and Pavement Marking," "Traffic Control," "Sign Structure," "Traffic Signal," "Other-Project Specific"--this last because this often hides signing, and "Roadway" if there is no separate signing set) to a separate directory.  These are then broken down into their constituent sheets and premerged (using a combination of GhostScript and pdftk) into a single file, with sheets considered likely to have signing placed closer to the front (so "Signing and Pavement Marking" first while "Other-Project Specific" at the back).  Then I go through the file in a PDF viewer and mark out pages to extract by page number, and a separate script extracts them.  This month the file to examine ran to 2072 pages while I identified 143 that were suitable for extraction.  (It would be nice to have an extraction ratio closer to 90%, which is what I have for TxDOT, but in order for that to happen there would have to be metadata such as PDF bookmarks to single out sign design, sign elevation, and detour map sheets, and PennDOT doesn't generate it at that level.)

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.

I have my doubts as to whether those were plotted accurately, since I suspect practitioners in many PennDOT districts use Clearview as a CAD placeholder for signs that will ultimately be fabricated using the FHWA series.  It is also possible to achieve this kind of unwanted font substitution by using the wrong signcad.rsc file for sign drawings prepared in SignCAD.  Nevertheless, I extracted these drawings given PennDOT's reported and photographically documented history of using Clearview in negative contrast for certain types of nag sign.

One additional piece of evidence that PennDOT is moving away from Clearview is the existing signing in the I-84 sign layout sheets (not included in the 143 extracted sheets I uploaded) being shown using Clearview.  This implies that new signs with Series E Modified are replacing old signs with Clearview.

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.

I find it mildly astonishing that they have a CAD-plottable version of the "acorn."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on October 25, 2018, 11:58:38 PM

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.



It appears that Chandler has brought back Clearview for their regular street blades.  Can't confirm if they are using it again for their lighted street blades at signalized intersections; Chandler switched them to a thinner-stroked Helvetica after the interim approval was revoked, although there are a few isolated installations that are in FHWA (one of them being the Chandler Boulevard and Alma School intersection), possibly contractor errors.  Gilbert, Mesa, and Queen Creek still seem to be using FHWA (a Clearview sign in Queen Creek was replaced by one in FHWA the past week due to a change in the intersection for two different street names for each direction).  Gilbert and Mesa actually now put the city logos in their newest street blades at signalized intersections (although Mesa doesn't do illuminated blades at all signalized intersections; they have actually cut back on them except along Main Street, Downtown, and some specific districts such as the Fiesta District, Eastmark, and the Power Knowledge Corridor).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on November 19, 2018, 04:51:03 PM
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]
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on November 19, 2018, 05:03:40 PM
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]
Quote
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.

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it seems the FHWA's minds haven't been changed since the initial yanking of the approval.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on November 19, 2018, 05:13:22 PM
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]
Quote
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.

Nice find.  And it backs up my earlier criticisms of Clearview's size.

Quote
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.

In other words, as I've pointed out before, Clearview was made larger, and thus the comparison between FHWA and Clearview was unfair due to the size difference.  Nice slight of hand by the developer of Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 16, 2018, 06:00:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on December 16, 2018, 06:08:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 06:24:47 PM
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?

I suspect West Virginia. A sign replacement project on I-79 used the old font.

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.

Why do you think the new Congress will care, or won't care?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 16, 2018, 10:24:01 PM
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?


I know here at the local level in Arizona, Chandler apparently opted back in and Phoenix apparently never stopped using it, while Mesa, Gilbert, and Queen Creek have opted out.


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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 17, 2018, 01:54:19 AM
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?

Oklahoma used Clearview but did not readopt it with the new interim approval; new conventional-road FHWA Series signs were installed last week on US-62 in Newcastle.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:07:24 PM


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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 17, 2018, 12:40:45 PM
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

yes
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on December 17, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
The Democrats won't need to revoke Clearview.  The law requiring FHWA to allow it wasn't permanent - in fact, it's already expired.  FHWA probably figured that revoking the IA at this point would only spur Johnson to push for a more permanent law.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: lordsutch on December 20, 2018, 06:00:02 PM
If TxDOT continues to want to use Clearview (or TTI wants it), they'll certainly be able to get someone else to take up the mantle from Johnson; notably, his proposed legislation to overrule the FHWA rescission before it was rolled into the appropriations bill was co-sponsored by Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat from Dallas (corrected; I had the wrong representative in the original post).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on February 15, 2019, 04:22:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 08:02:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on February 16, 2019, 07:27:46 PM
Ah.  So.   DimView Continues.   Ka-Ching!!!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 10:16:33 PM
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.
My understanding is that there is no additional cost in returning to FHWA fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on February 17, 2019, 02:59:12 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 17, 2019, 03:21:49 PM
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.
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.
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.
Now if someone in PA DOT thinks ClearView is actually better - that is a completely different story.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 17, 2019, 04:52:10 PM
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.

Haven't the PennDOT contractors been using Clearview for 10+ years? At this point, I'm sure we can conclude that those contractors got their investment back. Although that is a rather strange thing to say, as I'm not sure how to measure investment return in this matter.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: billpa on February 17, 2019, 05:41:31 PM
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

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 17, 2019, 08:18:00 PM
There's always a chance the FHWA Series Gothic type family and Clearview type family could be further updated to bring them up to modern type standards.

While there may be plenty of fans of Series Gothic the fact remains the type family is still very primitive in terms of its features and character sets. If it wasn't already long in use as a typeface for traffic sign use the type family would not be good enough to sell commercially. There are plenty of open source type families that are far better drawn and have far more fleshed-out character sets.

Clearview Highway has a more complete set of characters, at least in terms of the basics. As a commercial typeface it is arguably pretty over-priced. It is just for a niche market though. The companion Clearview Text type family has more weights, a much larger OTF-enhanced character set (featuring things like native small capitals, old style figures, full fraction sets, etc) yet a price per font that is lower than Clearview Highway.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 17, 2019, 08:59:09 PM
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

And that's your opinion. I'm fine if a font replaces Highway Gothic, but only after proper studies are completed -- ones that compare the fonts on level playing fields -- and the new font is found to create a substantial improvement. Accepting something just because a few others are using it is not a good enough justification for the switch/expenditure in my book. Ideally, I'd also love to see this done by someone without the influence of potential profiting on said fonts' sales.

If you haven't read it already, read this report:
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]
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on February 17, 2019, 10:23:47 PM
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


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.

Not to mention that it looks absolutely hideous in many jurisdictions, PA among them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on February 17, 2019, 11:33:11 PM
Not to mention that it looks absolutely hideous in many jurisdictions, PA among them.

Ironically, I actually think that by now most PennDOT districts have mostly figured out how to do Clearview "well," though many districts (particularly the western ones) are still obsessed with large first letters.

It's certainly far easier to mess up than Highway Gothic, which is a red flag in and of itself.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2019, 04:30:13 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Brandon on February 18, 2019, 05:09:41 PM
It's certainly far easier to mess up than Highway Gothic, which is a red flag in and of itself.

CalTrans: Hold my beer!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2019, 08:05:30 PM
Caltrans could make any typeface look ugly considering how they handle highway sign design and maintenance. There's lots of huge green signs throughout their freeway system. But so many are decaying badly or have other problems, like hideous looking patch jobs. I generally dislike their conventions of sign design. I hate the unique way they handle exit tabs. Even a bunch of their overhead sign structures look ugly. My least favorite is that solid wall treatment behind the green panels. That stuff looks like a giant privacy fence hanging over the road.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on February 18, 2019, 08:36:55 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 18, 2019, 11:32:57 PM
When I do a critical take-down on a sign design I get into specifics rather than just saying it looks ugly. The term "ugly" is really only a subjective, non-specific judgment. If you're saying a bunch of signs set in Clearview are all ugly in the same way that only sounds like you just don't like the aesthetic style of Clearview. There's nothing wrong with that. But it says nothing about how the signs bearing that typeface were actually designed and fabricated.

The "x-height" of Clearview lowercase letters are 81.6% the "M-height" of its capital letters, more than 6% larger than Series Gothic lowercase letters. That complies with a rule regarding highway sign fonts last decade, which requires lowercase letters to be at least 75% the height of the corresponding capitals in that typeface. That rule has been badly mis-interpreted in many cases, resulting in many road-side travesties in sign design. Series Gothic actually comes up a tad short of that 75% rule. Depending on the version you use the X-height will be 72%-73% of the cap letter M-height. Only taller lowercase glyphs like "o" get it past the 75% barrier. Funny thing: the x-height of Font Bureau's Interstate is exactly 75%. Clearview's "color" is not as "black" as Series Gothic. The loops and other features on glyphs are larger and more open. That can improve legibility as well as the rhythm of text spacing. It also does reduce over-glow of reflective letters. But one consequence is lettering set in Clearview tends to require longer sign panels.

Clearview has a more contemporary design to it. It is not as "neutral" looking as a geometric sans face such as HTF Gotham, or even as neutral as Series Gothic. That increased amount of style does not appeal to everyone. As I've said before (repeatedly) I think Series Gothic is pretty crude and even dated looking. It is not well drawn compared to modern type design standards and it has a grossly insufficient character set. Interstate is far better drawn (designed by one of the world's best living type designers) and has a much larger "super family" of faces. But its built-in spacing is not appropriate for traffic sign use. It has 36 weights, but that's divided up between only 3 widths.

Perhaps the next time federal agencies look at evaluating typefaces for traffic sign use they ought to be more objective with evaluating what is available both in the open source field of type as well as commercial alternatives. I am certain there are typefaces with feature sets superior to those in both Series Gothic and Clearview that could give both a run for their money in terms of objective legibility tests. Those agencies might also want to take a look at new technologies like the OpenType Variable format. The Acumin Variable Concept typeface bundled in with Adobe Illustrator CC is pretty cool.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 19, 2019, 12:32:28 AM
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.

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.
Honestly, the ugly FHWA signs I've seen tend to be because of errors on the individual signs.

I submit Exhibit A: https://goo.gl/maps/oKX3Vw6KxSt (https://goo.gl/maps/oKX3Vw6KxSt). Embarrassed by my own alma mater. :pan:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 19, 2019, 12:50:40 AM
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 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". Has anyone seen any data with regard to how much of an issue sign legibility is given the most current sign materials? Is there a problem worth the time, effort, and in the case of some roadgeeks, heartache? Back when WisDOT was experimenting with it (and the various local media outlets covered the story), there were editorials that followed about how much of a waste of resources the experiment was (little did they know the signs replaced were at the end/beyond their useful life/due for replacement anyway). I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, but it just feels like a solution in search of a problem.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: billpa on February 19, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
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?
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 19, 2019, 10:05:35 AM
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?
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 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.
So, it becomes a matter of who is funding the study, glass may be half empty or half full. Psychology, in general, is suffering from the reproducibility crisis, and such studies may have same problem.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2019, 10:50:18 AM
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: DaBigE
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".

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2019, 11:15:45 AM
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:

(https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/american-gothic-1930_u-l-pgiohp0.jpg?h=275&w=275)

Sorry, I just had to do that.  :sombrero:

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2019, 11:28:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 19, 2019, 01:00:34 PM
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: DaBigE
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".

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 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.

But I think Clearview could have left the numbers untouched; I didn't see anything wrong with FHWA's clarity. In fact, I prefer it, as the 6, 8, and 9 are easily distinguishable. Some other typefaces (Clearview isn't the worst, but it could be better), tighten the loop on the 9 and the 6, making them look similar to an 8 from a distance.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on February 19, 2019, 01:08:56 PM
I know the wider character set is the reason Québec adopted Clearview.  Creating accent marks with FHWA required workarounds, but with Clearview, they're built in.  Thankfully, Québec is one of the jurisdictions that is able to make it look decent.  British Columbia, on the other hand, is not - their Clearview signs look horrible, but their FHWA signs looked fine.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on February 19, 2019, 01:12:00 PM
And Pennsylvania is hit or miss depending on what district is putting up the signs, regardless if its Clearview or not.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2019, 01:42:01 PM
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.

These street-blade signs in NJ have been around since mid-90s (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9330003,-75.0664681,3a,75y,166.65h,84.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNCsyN9-dYFat6RxOtHOfKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  The NJ 70-Marlton Ave sign has been there since the mid-90s.  I used to work nearby that intersection & remember that sign being erected.  The original McClellan Ave. streetblade sign erroneously read McClellen Ave..

This version of the lower-case s (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9137197,-75.0100727,3a,75y,108.8h,91.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl7X-5zn8gMk0SXpEdBZ2bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) looks a lot better than the Series 2000 variant.

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). 

Example of NJDOT's use of what appears to be Enhanced Series E-modified (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9344199,-74.9660669,3a,75y,34.26h,79.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_HYtuMMC4fwlVPrso52pZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Compared to the conventional Series E-modified (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9325711,-74.968852,3a,75y,32.49h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMKDm9_PB8iKohvwcxoTklg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

When I first saw the former-example; it took me a while to pin-point the actual differences.  The style appeared the same but one was a little more crisp & discernible from a further distance.  That said, I agree with you that the use of E-enhanced for mixed-case lettering should've been dropped once button-copy was no longer offered/available.  Had such been done, and this was no doubt mentioned many posts back; there wouldn't have been a need for the Clearview font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2019, 04:53:30 PM
Quote from: DaBigE
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.

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 good 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 19, 2019, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: DaBigE
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.

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.
Sort of tangential question - but how much would it cost to bring FHWA series up to speed?
I am thinking about it in terms of FHWA biting the bullet and paying one time for improvement - and getting exclusive (to be released to public domain, maybe with limitations) rights for such font. As far as I understand, cost will be fairly trivial for an agency which pays billions for bridges. And definitely cheaper than back and forth with ClearView
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2019, 06:37:06 PM
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.

The cost of testing is a whole other matter. This can be done using a bunch of different approaches, but it all involves making sign mock-ups. That stuff isn't exactly cheap, especially if you're going to make mock ups using the same retro-reflective vinyls used on the actual traffic signs. So that's going to add thousands, if not tens of thousands more to the price tag. If you have a team of people working and researching on this for an extended period of time the cost can really shoot up from there.

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.

As far as an open source angle goes, there is next to no one who will be willing to do it right (especially if politics are going to be kept out the equation) and arrive at a product freely available to the public. Google is really the only company that might be suited to tackling a project like re-vamping Series Gothic. They already subsidize a number of typeface projects to use in their open source Google Fonts collection. That sets them apart from Apple, who primarily licenses commercial typefaces like Helvetica or Avenir Next in Mac OSX and iOS. Google has its Maps and Earth applications. The company is actively involved in self-driving car technology. They would be able to eat a couple hundred grand worth of development costs (if not considerably more) without much problem if it means having bragging rights of putting a major contribution into the "official highway typeface." The big question is, "would they even want to do that?" Obviously someone would have to go to the trouble of selling Google on the idea.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 19, 2019, 11:39:35 PM
Quote from: DaBigE
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.

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). Since it's for the US roadway system, I feel if the government sets the rules, they should also pick up the tab to do it right and, in theory, without bias.

Inadvertently, you hit on a few other gripes I have with the current series. The stroke width difference in cardinal directions is like nails on my OCD chalkboard. Although, I was thinking about it today, while passing a few such signs on my way back to the office after picking up our count equipment. At least on the independent route markers, from an artistic standpoint, the thicker capital letter does highlight the truly important bit of information on that sign plate. I think a lot of the visual issues like this are spawn from all the sign design programs being CAD-based, where many of the programs work with letter cells and not font families, in a way that Word or InDesign handle fonts. Making a letter taller is a simplistic x,y scaling rather than sourcing a different component of the font family.

Abominations like this (https://goo.gl/maps/bTxrUpra3DG2) are still scattered about Madison, but luckily, someone finally got them the 2000 series, and the signs are more palatable now (https://goo.gl/maps/3bV3Nm5bdbv).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2019, 01:22:43 AM
Quote from: DaBigE
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).

Did you know that most typeface designers are either designing type on a self-employed basis or as part of a very small business? There is not very many big companies involved with distributing commercial or even open-source typefaces. The big players are Adobe, Linotype and Monotype. They've gobbled up other major type foundries. Linotype acquired ITC. Monotype bought out Bitsream (and its MyFonts web site) and the FontFont foundry. Other notable foundries are still around, like House Industries and Letterhead fonts. Quite a few type designers and their company labels are literally one man shops. They gotta be able to make a freaking living.

I've personally spent thousands of dollars of my own money on commercial typefaces. I have a 100% legal license of Clearview Highway for instance (complete B & W weights set no less). That's on top of the thousands upon thousands my sign company has spent on the same thing. It's all part of the cost of doing business.

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. If some company is going to distribute typefaces free to the public that company has to be willing to eat a whole lot of cost. Any such company isn't going to be willing to do that without some kind of money-making benefit on a related angle. That's why I bring up the scenario with Google. But for all I know Google might see a future where no road signs or highway markers are needed at all.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on February 20, 2019, 02:04:18 AM
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.

It's his choice to live and work there. I'm personally not going to cry myself to sleep at night concerned about his welfare.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 20, 2019, 08:20:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2019, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan
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.

So you do expect anyone commissioned to design a typeface used on highway signs to do the job for free to cut down on all that gub'ment waste? Do you expect anyone else doing work for the government to do that work for free? I've designed a hell of lot of signs for military posts in my region and other spots around the country. Am I supposed to be doing my job for free? Is it government waste for the US Army to hire a private sign company to do all that work? Or is the Army supposed to maintain its own damned sign shop?

I guarantee the people who designed the original Series Gothic typefaces didn't do that work for free. I guarantee Caltrans didn't help research and develop Series E Modified for free either. Somebody had to pay for that work.

I really suspect the main thing causing all the heartburn is Clearview Highway is a commercial typeface and it isn't legally available for free. Of course that hasn't stopped people from acquiring the font files without paying for them and even posting those files on this web site.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 20, 2019, 12:15:09 PM
No one is suggesting the initial work should be done for free. It's the ongoing profits/royalties beyond the initial project cost that we object to.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2019, 03:54:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 20, 2019, 04:23:39 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on February 20, 2019, 04:31:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on February 20, 2019, 06:12:24 PM
Syracuse, N.Y. had mixed case Series D on their street blade signs in the 70s, and it looked pretty much identical to the mixed case Series D used on by Georgia on their BGSes for all those years (but not that squared off "D"). Truth be known, I find mixed case Series D (specifically "Georgia D" to be far superior to both Series E modified and Clearview). It's a shame that GDOT has abandoned the practice. The mixed case Series D as shown in the MUTCD and used by plenty of DOTs is not great, the "s" and the "w" are particularly awful. The GDOT version of Series D is much, much better.

As a resident of Illinois where there's plenty of Clearview, when used properly (mixed case legend for destinations) it looks pretty good. The numerals are a mess and plenty of folks messed up how the lettering is suppose to do be used, but when used properly it's not bad. I still find Georgia D superior though.

Series E modified should have been dropped when button copy was dropped. Instead they should have put more emphasis on using Series E but with Series E modified letter spacing. That looks awesome and doesn't suffer from nearly as much halation at night.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on February 20, 2019, 09:05:11 PM
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.

I disagree with Arial looking official. To me, it screams "Ed from Accounting was tired of people not changing the bottle in the water cooler so he made this sign and tried to make it look official so he used the font from his spreadsheets." That and it looks like a cheap knock-off of Helvetica.

Quote
"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.

Seems like a lot of road sign fonts have some typographic flaws, which makes sense because they're usually designed by engineers and not by graphic designers. When I was doing research on my Trafikkalfabetet digitization project, I found a few articles of typography snobs criticizing it for various things, some of which they had a point on (like the fact that the tittles on i and j are far too small for the character body) and some that are nitpicky.

Quote
"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.

I agree with this too. The official spec, which I refer to in my posts as "vanilla Series D" (or whichever), has very awkward lowercase letterforms. The older, unofficial lowercase letterforms that were used by agencies like Iowa DOT (which I like to call "chocolate Series D") are much more palatable.

Quote
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.

Transportation research seems to be following this line of thought, so we may well end up with Series E on guide signs soon. Recent research has shown that "Enhanced E Modified" (Series E, but using E(M) spacing tables) performed better than Clearview or Series E(M).

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.

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.

It could be argued that some features like typographic ligatures could be useful, but I'd want to see studies showing that "ff" is more legible than "ff" before it appeared on signs. Although this is of questionable benefit if the features aren't supported by the software anyway.

Perhaps before another project like Clearview is undertaken, studies should be done comparing FHWA Series to other established road sign fonts like Transport, Trafikkalfabetet, and DIN 1451. If one of those is already more legible, we could get the benefits for free.

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.

Anything developed in house by the federal government is automatically public domain. One can also choose to void their own copyright on a work and make it public domain by themselves.

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".

So really, all that would have to be done is to have someone at FHWA redraw Clearview and release the files under a name like "New FHWA Series D" or something. This may not meet ethics requirements, though, despite being regularly done in the private sector.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on February 20, 2019, 09:31:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 20, 2019, 10:18:50 PM
Quote from: DaBigE
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.

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.

Quote from: jakeroot
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)?

Typeface designs can be commissioned where the designer is guaranteed a certain level of pay for the project. For example Tobias Frere-Jones first developed the Gotham type family for GQ in 2000. But the contract was drawn up so the Hoefler & Frere-Jones foundry would retain the copyright to Gotham and be able to sell it commercially. GQ would have had to pay more to get a complete buy-out on the rights to that type family.

Some typeface designers will create typefaces that are fully open source or licensed free for personal use to attract attention and recognition for their work. It can make it easier for them to sell other type families they design on a commercial basis.

Re-designing a type family like Series Gothic and making the results fully open source would require the typeface designer to be given a good paying contract for the work. It wouldn't be worth it otherwise. The type designer couldn't develop a proper update of Series Gothic for free just for the sake of name recognition. That's because if the updated typeface was put through all sorts of rigorous legibility tests chances are 100% lots of revisions to the letters would be involved. It's one thing to design a free typeface where you, the designer, get to call all the shots and declare when the work is finished. If you're literally working on the typeface for years, making all sorts of little changes and improvements to it suggested by other people, you're going to want get paid for all that extra pain in the ass work.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

First of all, I don't agree with the US highway sign rules that forbid the use of punctuation marks and diacritics. There are people, places and things in the US that use diacritic marks (like accents) in their names. Just about all those marks work properly in a 1990's era TrueType or Postscript Type 1 font. If those same diacritic marks have to be supported in something like a small caps character range, or alternate characters (like different versions of a lowercase "a") then OpenType is required.

I have seen plenty of mileage signs on highways use fractions. The basic ½, ¼ and ¾ marks are supported in the old DOS character set. Yet those characters are missing from some of the "Highway Gothic" fonts in use. Most modern OpenType fonts will support the basic ½, ¼ and ¾ fraction characters and include a complete super-script and sub-script set of numerals so any fraction can be created.

Native small capital character sets are now a necessity since cardinal directions on signs must be expressed in all caps, but with a larger first letter. The current, fake method used on road signs stinks. We already discussed this particular OpenType style font feature previously.

While I'm definitely a fan of ligatures in general use typefaces, ligatures don't make sense on highway signs due to the wider letter spacing. For those not familiar with typographical ligatures, a ligature combines two or three characters into a single glyph (combos like "fi", "fl", "ffl", etc).

My suggestion about Greek and Cyrillic character ranges is to make the typeface marketable to more countries. It's pretty common these days for new OpenType fonts to support those alphabets. Even a decent number of open source fonts manage to do so.

Quote from: Scott5114
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".

The key thing to remember is the glyphs themselves are not protected. But computer software and data IS protected by copyright. If someone wants to make a counterfeit copy of Helvetica, Highway Gothic or whatever he will have to re-draw those characters from scratch. It is very much illegal for someone to take a finished computer file of a typeface, change its name and re-sell it. Back in the 1990's Adobe sued the hell out of Southern Software and won because the company literally took a bunch of its font files, changed their names and re-sold them in their "Key Fonts" CD software packages.

I have a pretty huge collection of typefaces. Some of that collection features the same typefaces but from different foundries. Several different versions of the Futura type family are available. Adobe markets the cut of Futura made by Linotype. Bitstream made a version of Futura that was bundled with CorelDRAW for the longest time. URW has its own version of Futura. Tilde has a version of it. Paratype sells Futura PT. Neufville Digital sells Futura ND and Futura Next. Monotype sells Futura Maxi. Elsner+Flake and Scangraphic Digital have their own versions of Futura. None of these Futura-named typefaces are interchangeable with each other. If you type out a line of copy in Futura BT Book and set it over the same lettering the same size set in Futura Std Book the letters will not line up perfectly. There's lots and lots of subtle differences. The same situation exists for all the clones of Helvetica (like Nimbus Sans, CG Triumvirate, etc) and plenty of other typefaces with long time popularity. Even the variants of Highway Gothic don't line up perfectly with each other.

That can create some really annoying situations in sign work. If a bad hail storm breaks some channel letter faces on a store front sign it's no big deal if we built the sign and have the original vector-based art files. If we have to re-create it from someone else's work the issue of typeface flavor can be an issue. Is that a Linotype Futura "G" or is that a Bitstream Futura "G"? Make the wrong choice and that new trim-capped acrylic replacement letter won't fit! And then God forbid if the original sign designer squeezed or stretched the lettering at all. In those cases you just have to create a paper pattern and hand-cut the replacement letter. Ugh.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 21, 2019, 09:06:18 AM
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.

This is exactly how I pictured it playing out.

Quote from: DaBigE
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 21, 2019, 10:24:15 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 21, 2019, 10:35:53 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Realistically, expecting getting paid for the work is more than reasonable, nobody arguing with that.
For me, this is about a pay per job/per hour vs pay per use forever. We accept toll roads as a necessary evil, but not more than that.
As for client trying to negotiate the price down (and contractor trying to negotiate it up), that is not unique for design world.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 21, 2019, 11:04:44 AM
Quote
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.

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.

Again...you're missing/ignoring our point. NO ONE has ever suggested the work get done for free. It's contract work. The typeface designer gets PAID ONCE, for development of the font for the customer/project (FHWA) and that's it. Requiring sign designers, engineering firms, state DOTs, municipalities, sign fabricators pay separately for every PC installation AFTER the typeface has already made back their initial cost of development for a product that should be in the public domain, is the issue at-hand. We're in the world of public infrastructure, not the music industry. No one is required to buy/download a song. Sign fonts are required by everyone in the business.

If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't submit a proposal; work for someone else whose rules/pricing scheme you do like. If the client changes the terms ("push around" as you put it) during the project, that's what amendments are for, where you dictate more money is required. No one's working for free.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 21, 2019, 11:19:52 AM
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:

*  The people who run highway departments have little patience for the baggage that comes with dealing with the type design community.  First, type designers are insanely jealous of each other.  When Jock Kinneir designed the Transport typefaces for the UK Ministry of Transport back in the late 1950's/early 1960's, David Kindersley--another type designer--launched a very public campaign to have his capitals-only, Roman-looking serifed typeface used on motorway signs.  He did not succeed, but not before side-by-side comparisons showed that Kindersley performed fairly similarly to Transport Medium, which was an embarrassment to civil servants who preferred a contemporary look for motorway signs.  Kindersley is in fact used extensively for street name signs, which in the UK (unlike the US) are not considered traffic signs.  After the Kindersley mess, Kinneir had difficulty letting go of his own design, and wrote to the Ministry heavily criticizing letter layouts on motorway signs he observed in the field.  He initially tried to have every single motorway sign sent to him (or to designers working under his supervision) for layout.  Letter tiling was the compromise that was eventually worked out.  Ministry files from the period (which are available for inspection at the UK National Archives in Kew, west London) are full of complaints about Kinneir's prima-donna behavior.

*  The stylized fact is that a well-articulated typeface will have legibility performance very similar to another well-articulated typeface.  This was seen in the UK with Transport versus Kindersley, and has been seen in the US with Clearview versus the FHWA series.  Similarity of performance means that testing shows differences that are incremental at best (~10% in the case of Clearview 5-W versus Series E Modified) and often change sign according to testing conditions (choice of glyphs, sheeting combinations, etc.).  Especially when there is a considerable corpus of existing signing, this tends to align the economic incentives in favor of retaining the existing typeface and designing around its known performance characteristics.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 21, 2019, 11:43:10 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 21, 2019, 02:11:28 PM
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 . . ."
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 21, 2019, 02:48:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 21, 2019, 03:54:43 PM
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.

Things they should have done when the 2000 edition of the FHWA Series was released.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on February 21, 2019, 04:43:23 PM
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.

Sorry--I see what you mean now.  Yes, it would be useful to have diacritics retrofitted.  I am less sure about small caps and fractions.  The "small caps" treatment is constructed in such a way that the size ratio of the larger initial letter to the other letters varies from one sign to another (the basis is presumably "next size up" rather than "uniform ratio").  Fractions on our signs are produced by constructing fraction rectangles and the sizing and construction procedure for these varies from state to state.  This is why you see guide sign design software using bodges like "55/64" to invoke state-specific fraction rectangle designs for common fractions like 1/4, 1/2, etc.

When you move away from "next size up," fraction rectangles, etc., there start to be ripple effects on the signing system as a whole.

Side observation:  one reason we don't have competent apostrophes on our signs is that they are a linguistic battlefield.  Apostrophes are necessary for certain placenames (not just "Martha's Vineyard," which is an officially codified exception, but arguably also "Parley's Canyon" etc.), but the USBGN hates them and fights hard not to accept them.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on February 21, 2019, 05:35:36 PM
Fraction rectangles aren't necessarily incompatible with embedding fractions in fonts. I designed fractions using the WSDOT fraction rectangle specification and embedded them into my Trafikkalfabetet. (Norway, of course, specifies distances in meters rather than using fractional kilometer measures, and therefore doesn't have its own fraction specification.)

(https://i.imgur.com/obX33Gc.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on February 22, 2019, 06:28:49 AM
Back in the early 2000s,  tying first into railroad typefaces, I bought some software to create computer fonts, and since the typefaces that BNSF was using at that time were non-standard, I went drew up the whole bloody things myself, both in the early "narrow" and the later "wide" versions.   Around 2005 they abandoned those older typefaces, but I'm still glad I drew them up, as it enabled me to learn much about typeface/computer font design.   Maybe not on a professional level, as my computer fonts were intended for... computer or printed-out use (duhh!) and not to be plastered on a BGS.   

Not long after this, I got drawn into Highway Gothic, again, because I work in the railroad industry, and then because First Union (Wells Fargo) Rail Leasing started using Series D on their rolling stock, there was a series of 1000 cars that had been re-lettered/numbered using Series D.    Once I realized just what typeface I was looking it there, I researched and decided I wanted all the HG variants as computer fonts.    I started with Series E, tried to draw it up myself based on the online FHWA specs, but after a bit, I found the old "Roadgeek" series, and merged them into the specifications I had set up.    But I went beyond that... I was aware of variations in HG, and worked to incorporate some of them as well.    OK, now, I'm no expert, just a hacker, and hell, one of the Series D variants I came up with was specifically intended for one music player application I run on my computer.    But it wasn't that hard to do, and all this talk of large amounts of dollars of unpaid labor, I'm not sure if I agree with. 

Okay, end of opinion. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 22, 2019, 11:49:28 AM
and 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on February 22, 2019, 12:42:28 PM
and 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 example
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on February 22, 2019, 03:27:34 PM
and 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 example

That's asking for a cost, which last I checked, means something is not being done for free.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on February 22, 2019, 08:05:02 PM
Okay, maybe my choice of words in saying "unpaid labor" was wrong.   But simply modifying established glyphs is really easy.    The hard part is deciding what to modify them into.   I guess that is where the dollars funnel into. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on February 24, 2019, 12:52:01 AM
and 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 example
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.

I dunno, I'd peg the amount of time I spent to get my implementation of Trafikkalfabetet to working state to be about a month or so, solo. I would expect an experienced typographer with better tools to be able to do the job faster and better.

I was limiting myself to just the ASCII characters plus Å and Æ, however.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 25, 2019, 07:03:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on March 02, 2019, 09:43:42 AM
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/
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 03, 2019, 06:00:58 PM
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/)


I wonder what is the current status of these cities on their usage of Clearview.  I rarely go to the West Valley, so I wouldn't know.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on March 04, 2019, 08:35:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on March 04, 2019, 09:54:27 AM
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.

I know that the font is not in Clearview. I figured people would want to see the "Cardinals Way" sign that Pink Jazz mentioned, but had no photo or link to.

As far as Clearview goes in the west valley of Phoenix, I know El Mirage isn't using it anymore on newer street signs. Same with Glendale. I don't know about most of the other cities, but their older Clearview signs are still out there. I imagine many can be seen on GSV.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 04, 2019, 05:35:50 PM
I can't confirm 100%, but I think I might have seen some new street blades in Queen Creek using Clearview.  Meanwhile Mesa and Gilbert are still not using it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on August 19, 2019, 09:36:00 PM
Highway Gothic on highway signs, clearview on street signs. So it depends where.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on August 19, 2019, 11:56:11 PM
Highway Gothic on highway signs, clearview on street signs. So it depends where.



Plus, it depends on the state and city too.  As far as I know some states are stricter and do not allow Clearview to be used on the local level, plus the adoption in states that do allow local use is generally not statewide.  Cities here in the Phoenix area that I know are using it currently are Phoenix, Chandler, and possibly Queen Creek.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on August 20, 2019, 08:46:12 AM
PennDOT still had at least one project with FHWA signs still in the pipeline (a repave of US 322 in Lebanon County with new distance signs), though they definitely use Clearview currently, with the US 222/322 DDI project near Ephrata recently being posted on ECMS with Clearview signage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2019, 11:05:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2019, 11:32:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 20, 2019, 03:32:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2019, 04:31:13 PM
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.

Regarding your second paragraph, I believe that is correct based on the document I saw–very clear guidance as to when it could and could not be used and it complied with what the FHWA wants. Some of the prior installations complied too, but many didn't (and of course some of them showed up on the FHWA's site as examples of incorrect use).

Regarding your first paragraph, of course the signs would be allowed to remain, it's just a question of whether they'll be aggressive in replacing them like they were last time around. A lot of the signs on I-395's general-purpose lanes that were replaced with Clearview signs weren't particularly old and it appeared they were replaced solely for the sake of putting up Clearview versions, and that's what makes me wonder if the same might happen in a couple of years. 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!).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 11:04:30 AM
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

That said, I've seen several misapplications of the Clearview font on signs (many of the PA Turnpike's EMERGENCY STOPPING/PULL-OFF signs being one of them) that were actually harder to read from a distance than Highway Gothic (usually Series D).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 11:52:24 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2019, 12:59:16 PM
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.

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.
It does seem like it happens more often and/or looks worse when it does on Clearview signs, though.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 22, 2019, 01:00:29 PM
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. 

Yes in regards to misapplications or wrong font subtype selected (example: using Series B numerals on 3d-I-shields) being the fault of the sign designer and/or agency's own specs. 

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.

Several agencies on their own, started using the thinner-stroked Series E font for missed-case applications (control-city listings) on their signs instead to reduce the halo-effect associated with the E-Modified lower-case letters.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 22, 2019, 03:42:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane
It 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.

Quote from: PHLBOS
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.

I'm aware of that history. Yet is has nothing to do with goofball design errors currently made on highway signs. Or even errors that occurred in the past.

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 -hello California!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on August 22, 2019, 06:44:25 PM
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.

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.

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.

That said, & such has been described all over this thread, is that the Clearview font was implemented via the IA to address one particular readability issue for one particular case scenario.  Such was never intended to be applied across-the-board for every signing situation; which was what many agencies & designers wound up initially doing & doing rather badly in some instances... especially during the IA's early years.  Adding insult to injury IMHO, and such wasn't flagged in the IA guidelines, was many agencies using or allowing the use of taller/larger text on top of utilizing the new font.   The whole purpose of using the Clearview font for control city lettering in the first place was so that one did not have to increase the letter heights to make the text more readable.  Such made for some unnecessarily-gargantuan-sized sign panels that dwarfed the route shield(s) in many instances.

Needless to say, there was definitely a learning curve of sorts in terms of using the Clearview font (such have different widths just like Highway Gothic).  Many agencies, PennDOT & PTC being two of them, eventually got the hang of properly using & applying the font and the signs didn't look as amateurish as their earlier installations.

That said & IMHO, Clearview for mixed-case lettering on dark backgrounds per the IA are more readable form a distance than Series E-Modified.  However, all-caps & numerals in Highway Gothic (regardless of which Series) are still more readable than their Clearview counterparts (in similar width series).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on August 22, 2019, 07:40:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on August 22, 2019, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane
It 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.
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 23, 2019, 11:56:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS
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.

That is what is supposed to happen. But it's clear to me the practice is not being followed in all cases. I'd like to see the plan sheets for some of the badly composed big screen signs here in Oklahoma. Like this one for instance:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2870007,-97.5998419,3a,75y,187.44h,91.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soXtHiwKsuF-CIW4sYsBVCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2870007,-97.5998419,3a,75y,187.44h,91.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soXtHiwKsuF-CIW4sYsBVCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

The "TURNPIKE" lettering is artificially stretched out of normal proportions. The spacing of "H.E. Bailey Turnpike" is awful: there are giant gaps between the words, yet the lettering runs right up next to the edge of the panel. That is piss poor use of negative space. The down arrows aren't even placed properly. Obviously that "composition" was just slapped together, like so many other signs from ODOT. If there is a plan sheet for that sign that has every letter position called out just like the sign was fabricated then I would be amazed.

It's certainly possible for sign fabricators to disregard the dimension numbers on a sign sketch and merely "eyeball" the placement of lettering and other elements on a sign panel. The thing is the numbers on the sketch actually help speed up the vinyl application process. There's no guessing or extra measuring involved. Listing the numerical position of each individual letter is overkill, IMHO. Normally vinyl lettering is cut in a vinyl plotter in whole lines of copy and applied to the sign face in that manner. I've seen some sign panels in Oklahoma where the lettering looks like it was applied one letter at a time (which is freaking stupid). There's one sign here in Lawton on I-44 that has words with letters of different sizes. Check out the over-sized "l" in Great Plains or the huge "r" in "Auditorium." Some of the letters are leaning slightly, which makes for a comically wacky look:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6289186,-98.3873363,3a,75y,196.04h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGlv5rfXc8okKNAEzyW_VYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6289186,-98.3873363,3a,75y,196.04h,89.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGlv5rfXc8okKNAEzyW_VYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 24, 2019, 06:46:43 AM
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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on August 24, 2019, 12:33:51 PM
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.

This is what I was told years ago by Randy Hersh.  He didn't cite a source, but I suspect he was probably told that directly by a signing engineer at Oklahoma DOT.  He tried to establish contacts in person with engineers responsible for guide signing at the various state DOTs--e.g. Richard Moeur at Arizona DOT (since left to work for a consulting firm), Mike Weiss at Minnesota DOT (passed away in 2011), Arlen Tappan at Kansas DOT (long retired, now dead, I think).

Just at the level of letting plans--leaving the actual installed signs out of consideration--there is a lot of variability with Oklahoma DOT according to who compiles the sign designs.  Among consultants, TEC probably produces the cleanest signing plans.

Oklahoma is a GuidSIGN state, and a typical GuidSIGN sign panel detail includes a table of letter and object lefts below the sign sketch.  SignCAD also has the ability to show letter and object lefts but generally does so in the sketch itself rather than a separate table, with each letter and object having the corresponding measurement written diagonally above in small type.  However, SignCAD drawings with these notations are very much in the minority.  Minnesota DOT is the only agency I know of that uses them routinely.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: odditude on August 24, 2019, 02:26:40 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on August 24, 2019, 10:36:51 PM
"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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2019, 01:12:04 AM
Quote from: Scott5114
Those gross TURNPIKE banners have been replaced by less grotesque ones in all-caps Clearview, fortunately.

Not all of them. That one I referenced in Google Maps at the North end of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike is still there. On recent drives between Lawton and Joplin as well as Lawton to the Tulsa area I swear I saw a couple others with the abnormally, artificially stretched type.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

If that's the case they need to sub-contract to a better sign company. One with some graphic designers equipped with actual human eye sight. Stevie Wonder could design better signs than that.

Quote from: Scott5114
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

Holy shit, that's bad! Oh my God. That is one hell of a Frankenstein lettering job, composed with a grab bag of letters of different sizes. It's almost a miracle they kept the lettering within the same type family. I wouldn't put it past ODOT to make some signs with letters mixed in both Clearview and Series Gothic. That might go farther for creating a ransom note visual.

It all but looks like they made the sign like that on purpose as a virtual F.U. to somebody. I don't know. Maybe a supervisor somewhere. But they're taking their anger out on the poor motorists having to see that garbage.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 25, 2019, 01:21:56 AM
"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

Let's go downtown
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 01:59:06 AM
Bored...

(https://i.imgur.com/gmbhaYo.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on August 25, 2019, 02:01:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: MNHighwayMan on August 25, 2019, 02:42:47 AM
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?

Dude, just read the thread.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on August 25, 2019, 05:26:55 AM
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.

This probably answers my question. Thanks. I hate reading long threads by the way.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DJStephens on August 25, 2019, 02:11:36 PM
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.

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.   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 10:19:44 PM
Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on August 26, 2019, 12:28:41 AM
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.

The next time you drive through a construction zone, look to see how many of the barricades' stripes point the correct way. That will kick someone's OCD into overdrive.  :ded:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on August 26, 2019, 01:28:49 PM
I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

The best tactic in that scenario would be to read 469 posts, then elbow the gunman in the crotch.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on August 26, 2019, 07:56:51 PM
Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

Takes up way too much time for me. I rather skim through pages where I get the information about Highway Gothic vs Clearview from.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DRMan on September 10, 2019, 09:02:52 AM
Car & Driver's take on Highway Gothic vs. Clearview: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28903239/us-highway-sign-fonts/?src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_medium=social-media

(Originally linked to by the excellent uni-watch.com as a ticker item. Sports fans should take a look.)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 11, 2019, 07:35:13 PM
Of course they got Meeker's opinion on it and glossed over the shady shit.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 26, 2019, 08:15:49 AM
Have not looked here lately but just read that C&D article and thought it ended far too soon.   It really wimped out on talking about any of the controversy and debate that we find in this thread. 

Me, I've said it before that I don't much care for Clearview... now, I do find that it works, but I'd rather have had an "extended view" version of Highway Gothic instead.   I guess I just don't like the aesthetic of it, and I'm surprised that I still care about this, because I think I suffer from some kind of depression now that makes it so I don't care about much of anything anymore! 

Okay,  after my parents passed away, and the estate was sold, I no longer had much reason to drive from central Wyoming to Colorado any more very often.   In the past I documented some of the kind of odd signs I would find along this route (I-25), including the shift to Clearview.    But now I only ever go down there to visit my dentist twice a year.   Well I recently had to do so three times in a couple of weeks due to needing some extra teeth maintenance.    So I got to see the signs along the way a few times... and started to notice something.   

Um, so did WYDOT nix Clearview prior to the all this interim approval waffling?   I'm seeing signs from 2017 (WYDOT usually puts a date code at the bottom left corner of all signs) that are not Clearview.   

(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. 

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 27, 2019, 09:41:54 AM
I'm seeing signs from 2017 (WYDOT usually puts a date code at the bottom left corner of all signs) that are not Clearview.   

(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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on September 27, 2019, 10:04:46 PM
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.   
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on September 27, 2019, 10:09:03 PM
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.   

I'm not sure if there were any exceptions, but generally Clearview isn't allowed for all-caps text and numbers.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on September 28, 2019, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm
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.

Quote from: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 28, 2019, 12:51:02 PM
I say that agencies that use Clearview for all-uppercase legend are technically compliant in terms of the original 2004 IA memo.  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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 28, 2019, 03:16:31 PM
Maybe the developers of the font should have removed numerals from the font before they sold it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 30, 2019, 11:56:51 AM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 30, 2019, 12:07:30 PM
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.

That is correct.  I am only arguing that use of Clearview for all-uppercase legend in positive contrast is technically compliant with the document that is known to be regulatory.  Whether it represents sound engineering practice is a separate issue.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on September 30, 2019, 05:06:49 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on September 30, 2019, 06:25:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2019, 08:22:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 30, 2019, 10:06:56 PM
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.

I think PHLBOS is talking about design creep.  Georgia went through this with D Georgia; they transitioned from 16" UC Series E Modified to 20" UC D Georgia (was supposed to improve legibility at low added cost in sign panel area since the mixed-case Series D letters were thinner), and then gave up and are now using 20" UC Series E Modified with really large sign panels.

Arizona, which did use Clearview, revamped guide signs at system interchanges (e.g., the I-10/I-17 stack in Phoenix) to use 20" UC Clearview 4-W (not 5-W or 5-W-R) instead of 16" UC Series E Modified.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 09:44:56 AM
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.
This is one case where 1 picture = 1000 words; okay two in this case for comparison purposes.

Using Norristown on the below two-examples for comparison, both of which are IA-compliant (letter heights for the distance listings & exit tab info for both examples are of the same size):

Example of using larger/oversized lettering for control cities (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0674582,-75.3373319,3a,75y,278.02h,79.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJyiV27d6QoWlrg73vt6R3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Example of using appropriate-sized lettering for control cities (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0815194,-75.312764,3a,75y,40.89h,83.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stTXsmo_a6x4z97yzXNXp4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
_________________________________________________________

Here's a more blatant example in Delaware (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8179229,-75.4517867,3a,75y,213.75h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlXIrGY-STty5YU7cft7aA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) compared to its predecessor signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8178989,-75.4518119,3a,75y,213.75h,86.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUvhnZI8sAYlOttFKG8zXfg!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

Even though DelDOT has since stopped using Clearview, they are still using larger text (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7774638,-75.5128591,3a,75y,71.01h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lho8AgDf1n1ya45U4RNUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for its control city/street name listings.  Here's its predecessor sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7777057,-75.5117786,3a,75y,64.07h,84.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3dgMKfbS2Y2D1BODQKU1fQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 01, 2019, 08:18:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on October 01, 2019, 08:34:54 PM
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.

Thank you for spelling that out so concisely.  I think people were talking past each other.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on October 06, 2019, 07:24:42 PM
Dude, just read the thread.

Well, skim. I wouldn't read 1900 posts with a gun to my head.

Oops, I might have just done that very thing. (Not in one sitting though, I'm not that crazy!)

As for my thoughts on the font, I really do not like how it looks in pictures and mock-ups at all, but I must say it's not nearly as noticeable in the field from what I've seen (mostly in Michigan). In general though, I think a font with varying stroke width such as Clearview has no business being on a traffic sign which is meant to look official; I agree with others that the font looks way too "friendly". 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.

As for whether it should be allowed in the US? I'm totally with the FHWA on this one. There was ample justification for disallowing Clearview in both their original notice rescinding the Interim Approval, as well as their report to Congress (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf) last year. Specifically, there are a few points made in the report that I think should immediately disqualify Clearview from use.

Firstly, in section 2.3, it is noted that during the development of Clearview, letters of the same size as the FHWA Standard Alphabets "failed to compete with the legibility and recognition of the Standard Alphabets" and that "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." The legibility of Clearview is therefore worse than the FHWA Standard Alphabets.

Secondly, the report lists all the research related to Clearview in a table (3.1), and every single study was either flawed in some way, or concluded that Clearview had worse or comparable legibility to the Standard Alphabets. With no research supporting the superiority of Clearview to the already standard font, and some even showing it to be inferior, it would be at best ignorant, and at worst, irresponsible, not to rescind its approval as further approval of something known to potentially be inferior could open the FHWA up to potential liability. (Although I admit with relatively small differences in legibility it is doubtful the use of typeface could really be attributed to any decrease in function, this is America so I'm sure someone would try.)

Lastly, there is the whole issue of Clearview effectively being proprietary. While the glyphs themselves are public domain and could thus be legally recreated and sold by other companies, as noted by others in this thread, the FHWA report also referenced a comment received from a traffic engineering consultant who said they had tried to purchase Clearview from a third-party vendor but that "the vendor was served with a cease-and-desist notification from the 'owners' of Clearview stating that the company could not sell the font." This shows that the Clearview developers fully intend to protect their monopoly and are chiefly interested in making money, regardless of whether or not the glyphs are public domain. (And this strategy certainly has the potential to work regardless of whether the other companies are breaching the Clearview copyright, see: YouTube copyright claims.)

--

On another note, the report also interestingly says that TxDOT had never actually asked for approval to use Clearview, which may explain why they just kept right on using it even after the Interim Approval had been rescinded. The report does also mention that TxDOT was intending to finally ask for approval at the time it was written, although this page (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm#ia5) states that their request has been denied, so I guess the FHWA gets the last laugh on this one!  :-D

I fully expect TxDOT to keep on using Clearview as long as they please though, "Don't mess with Texas" and all that.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 06, 2019, 08:26:57 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 06, 2019, 10:44:49 PM
I'm surprised it took ODOT this long to make this particular error.
(https://i.imgur.com/FZpmGNw.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 07, 2019, 12:25:23 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2019, 01:35:41 AM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on October 07, 2019, 09:39:39 AM
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.

Lastly, unlike with overhead sign structures, it is normally not necessary to fabricate replacement panels for ground-mounted posts to the exact dimensions of the original signs.  So ODOT could have provided a slightly larger sign that is more balanced and meets standard font styles, inter-letter spacings, and margins.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 07, 2019, 11:13:39 AM
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.

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.  The vertical spacing appears to me to be correct throughout (should be lowercase loop height between adjacent elements), but the horizontal spacing between vertical border and legend block is wrong (should be uppercase letter height; appears to be lowercase loop height).  There is indeed too much space between "Lee" and "Blvd," but I suspect that is a hack to get the main sign panel width up to the required width for the exit tab.  (It would be unnecessary if the correct legend-to-border horizontal spacing had been used.)

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.

This is I-44 northbound at a partial cloverleaf.  The cross road is Lee Blvd. on both sides but SH 7 only on the right (east) side.  Use of "Duncan" on this panel is suspect since the MUTCD deprecates street and town names on the same sign.  A supplemental guide sign with a message along the lines of "Duncan Exit 36A" would offer better positive guidance since in fact Exit 36B does not lead to Duncan.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2019, 12:35:30 PM
Actually this ground mounted sign is positioned North of the Lee Blvd exit, facing "Westbound" (Southbound really) I-44 traffic. The first exit ramp, labeled 36B, goes to WB Lee Blvd. The next ramp (a tight cloverleaf loop) for EB OK-7 is labeled Exit 36A by another ground mounted OK-7 sign just past the 36B ramp. But the actual exit sign just says Exit 36.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

ODOT is too cheap to use a wide enough panel to fit the message. I'm sort of used to seeing computer-based fonts squeezed or stretched on commercial business signs to maximize limited available space. It's really off-putting to see the bad practice creep into highway signs. I still intensely hate the practice in commercial sign design (especially when default Arial is involved). Commercial sign designers have an enormous choice of type families to use, including many "super families" containing a wide variety of native condensed, compressed, extended and wide widths. The new OpenType Variable font format is opening new possibilities in that regard. Some fonts have width axis sliders that allow the user to change the width properites of the typeface from really compressed to super wide while maintaining the optical balance of letter strokes. OTF Variable in a way ressurects the old Postscript Type 1 Multiple Master format, but combines its concept with OpenType's capability to support a far larger range of characters. Anyway, when it comes to signs for businesses there really is no legit excuse for a sign designer to squeeze and stretch the fonts, not with the giant choices of typeface he has at his fingertips.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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 thought the use of large cap/small cap treatment was a requirement for cardinal direction listings. Even if the treatment is not mandated I see it in use everywhere. Neither Series Gothic or Clearview Highway has native small cap character sets. There are various other deficiencies. That's one reason why I'm especially harsh to Series Gothic in my judgment. It's almost the year 2020. Modern typeface development is so much more advanced now. The OpenType format has been around nearly 20 years. The format can support any character set needed by typefaces intended for traffic sign use. If Series Gothic is going to continue to be the choice for traffic sign design then the type family sorely needs to be updated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2019, 12:52:41 PM
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).
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).

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:
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.

That significantly wider character range is probably why it's spread though Canada as much as it has (particularly Québec); the lack of built-in support for accents doesn't matter much if all the signs are in English, but it does if you need to make them in French.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on October 07, 2019, 01:35:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 07, 2019, 01:56:22 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/pbxkmO2.jpg)

This sign is bad, yes. But imagine how much worse it would be if everything was in Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on October 07, 2019, 02:28:48 PM
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?

Yes, it was with RRFBs - that is why the IA was initially pulled (when the lawsuits started). Then, another company bought the RRFB patent and turned it over to public domain and the IA was reinstated/recreated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2019, 08:22:42 PM
My understanding is that the patent issue was regarding some form of work zone traffic control.  As for RRFBs,, my understanding there is that a new flash pattern was developed that was unencumbered by the patent.  As for Clearview, wouldn't that be copyright rather than a patent?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Revive 755 on October 07, 2019, 09:41:58 PM
Didn't the revised flash pattern come prior to the pulling of the interim approval though?  My understanding is closer to what DaBigE states:  The patent was bought out and turned over to the public domain.  IIRC the patent had also been broad enough FHWA couldn't revise the interim approval to use more traditional circular beacons with rapid flashing pattern.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2019, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane
As for Clearview, wouldn't that be copyright rather than a patent?

Correct. Commercial typefaces are copyrighted. But it's kind of funny how the copyright protection works.

You can copyright the name of the typeface and you can copyright the specific font data. But you cannot copyright the abstract letter shapes. For instance if someone hand draws some lettering, mimicking a certain typeface, but didn't buy a license for it he wouldn't get in any trouble for copyright infringement. So anyone can create a digital look-alike "clone" of any typeface, even if it's an expensive commercial typeface (such as HTF Gotham for instance). However, the person intending to create the look-alike clone version can't simply use the existing font files verbatim and re-name them. That absolutely will get someone in very hot water legally speaking.

Back in the 1990's Adobe successfully sued a company selling "Key Fonts" packages on CD; the company literally copied an edition of Adobe Font Folio, the company's entire font library which retailed for around $7000. They re-named the font files but didn't change any of the actual font data (the outlines, metrics, etc), then sold them on CD-ROMs that cost around $30. Pretty obvious copyright infringement there.

A lot of different companies will sell their own take on a particular type family. Futura is a good example. A bunch of different type foundries sell their own take on it. They all look nearly identical, but if you set a text string in these different versions and then align them on top of each other you'll see a big amount of subtle differences. The foundries add little acronyms to the font name to be different enough legally speaking, or they can just go with a completely different name. Bitstream's knock-off of Helvetica is "Swiss 721 BT." There's Nimbus Sans, CG Triumvirate and a whole bunch of others.

It's kind of surprising there's not more knock-offs of Series Gothic, or more typefaces (like Font Bureau's Interstate) that improve the appearance and expand upon the character set.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on October 07, 2019, 11:24:32 PM
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.

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.

As for all the features missing from Highway Gothic? None of these are necessary for designing signs to current MUTCD standards. Special characters are neither used nor allowed, as mentioned previously. And small caps are indeed not required for cardinal directions as J N Winkler said; rather, these are specified by a larger letter height for the first letter (See tables 2E-4 and 2E-5 in the MUTCD, pg. 190-191). So yeah, it's not real small caps, but it isn't meant to be either. This may be a graphic design flaw but for a sign whose primary function is not to look pretty, it makes no difference. And if you are need of extra characters for some other application, the Interstate font should be more than capable of that, no?

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. The primary goal of any type of engineering is to optimize a design to maximize or minimize certain desired variables. In roadway engineering this often involves maximizing capacity, safety, speed, etc. and minimizing environmental impacts, space used, cost, etc. This is why you may end up with signs that do not look as good as they could, since if sacrificing looks reduces the cost but does not decrease functionality, most of the time this trade-off will be made to avoid spending extra money unnecessarily. Now, if corners are cut by violating standards, that is another story...

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...

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).

I'm not a big fan of APLs either, however I like BC's much better with the arrows they use.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on October 08, 2019, 01:55:18 PM
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:

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: roadman on October 08, 2019, 03:17:24 PM
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.

Based on that criteria, you are correct - with one exception.  As 7 East and Lee Blvd are separate exits, the information really should be separated by a partial horizontal divider for clarity.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 08, 2019, 06:26:16 PM
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.

You're a bit too quick to let ODOT off the hook on this one–if this was a one-off panel with minor errors done by KDOT, MoDOT, or TxDOT, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, Oklahoma signage (both from ODOT and OTA) is riddled with panels that do not do their job and do not look professional. So this panel is a small part of a statewide pattern of design failures. Bobby's justified in pointing out that if ODOT cannot even get the small things like "don't stretch fonts" right (which, by the way, is specifically disallowed by the MUTCD), it speaks to their larger problem of getting the big ones right.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 01:43:58 AM
Quote from: steveshe
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.

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).

Quote from: steveshe
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.

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.

Quote from: stevashe
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...

Lettering can only be artificially stretched or squeezed in the computer. It doesn't happen after the reflective vinyl letters are cut.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 09, 2019, 03:22:56 AM
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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 09, 2019, 04:11:40 AM
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).

They don't even have to go that far. Since the fonts are dimensioned out in the Standard Highway Signs book, there's no need to actually specify the height, since it's inherent to the dimensions of the characters. When the next MUTCD is under review, I plan to leave a public comment asking for this rule to be stricken or revised.

Quote
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.

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.

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.

Personally, it's just Clearview that I don't like. I've been doing a decent amount of sign work lately for a D&D game...not going to get into the details on that unless someone asks... using FHWA Series, Clearview, RutaCL, and Trafikkalfabetet. I actually prefer Ruta and Trafikkalfabetet over FHWA Series. Both, though, lack the condensation options that the American typefaces have. In the case of Traffik, Norway does not seem to be particularly bothered by this because the entire Norwegian sign design language is built around accommodating the typeface, but attempting to use it as a drop-in replacement for FHWA Series in the U.S. would know what true suffering is.

At this point, a good chunk of my distaste for Clearview is borne from Meeker & Associates' corruption.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on October 09, 2019, 10:03:27 AM
Quote from: steveshe
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.

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.

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.

At this point, a good chunk of my distaste for Clearview is borne from Meeker & Associates' corruption.

^ This.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot
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!

The Interstate type family has been so over-used in advertising design that it has grown kind of tiresome. I don't expect Frere-Jones to re-visit that family any time soon. The same thing is threatening to happen to his even better Gotham type family, which is by far one of the best "neutral" typefaces designed in the past 30 years. And then there's the split between Frere-Jones and Jonathan Hoefler (who basically screwed Frere-Jones out of a fortune, claiming Frere-Jones was little more than a lowly employee rather than a founder of H&FJ). Hoefler still "owns" the rights to Gotham. So, Gotham will probably fall by the wayside soon as well.

The Interstate family has just 3 widths (normal, condensed & compressed), but a very wide variety of weights for each width sub-family, from hairline to ultra-black. Nevertheless, the curves of Interstate are far more fluid and refined than the clunky nature of Series Gothic. Despite the superior appearance of Interstate, it was not intended for traffic sign use.

In a perfect world, someone would re-visit and expand upon Interstate, adding more widths (including extended and wide versions). An OpenType Variable version would actually be really good. That would provide enough latitude in both width and weight axis to fit any traffic sign need. Currently OTF Variable fonts are pretty rare. Adobe has a few bundled into Creative Cloud applications like Illustrator and InDesign. Windows 10 bundles in the Bahnschrift typeface.

Quote from: Scott5114
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).

Letters like "C", "O" & "S" can be a challenge to apply correctly doing so a single letter at a time without reference lines drawn over the release tape to establish the correct vertical orientation as well as the baseline.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

The type III sheeting is expensive. But ODOT isn't using it on the lettering. They've been using cheap, "engineer's grade" white reflective vinyl. There's a bunch of it on green panels around here. Yet it looks like they're slapping the letters on the panels one at a time anyway. For what ever money they're saving on material costs, I guarantee they're blowing more than that on all the extra time & labor needed to apply letters one at a time. We have a Rolls-Roller table in our vinyl room that can lay down a big sheet of vinyl onto a sign panel in one big sweep. No bubbles, wrinkles or anything, and it's straight. It's one of the best investments we've ever made.

Quote from: DaBigE
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.

In this case the state agencies that wanted to switch to Clearview already spent the money to do so.

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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2019, 01:22:01 PM
My distase is a combination of asethetics and Meeker corruption.  Honestly, Clearview just isn't a look I enjoyed.  I found a couple of locations where it's easy to compare between the two.

Location 1: I-90 EB approaching I-290
Clearview (before): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=101_2625.JPG
FHWA (after): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=102_0151.JPG

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.

Bonus sign (FHWA, even older, but not the exact same spot): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=100_3834.JPG

Location 2: I-90 WB approaching Ripley (near PA)

Clearview: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=101_4486.JPG
FHWA: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=101_4488.JPG

In this case, it's not the same sign over time, and the Clearview doesn't look as bad as in the previous example because the numbers in the exit tab are still FHWA.  I could live with Clearview more if all the signs were like this (even with the "1 MILE" in Clearview), though I still prefer FHWA.

Bonus yucktastic Thruway Clearview signs (the latter of which qualifies for the worst of roadsigns thread; maybe that sign biased me against BC, since it is similar in many ways, though with design errors):
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=100_6731.JPG
http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i90&state=NY&file=101_2429.JPG

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: DaBigE on October 09, 2019, 01:56:35 PM
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.

I think if Bobby5280 cracked open GuideSign or SignCAD he would be in for a rude awakening.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 02:23:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane
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.

Principals of graphic design, tyopography, layout, etc still apply regardless of what kind of software is used. And shitty looking signs are no less shitty looking because an engineer composed it rather than a graphic designer.

Regarding "branding programs," many large companies have very specific brand guidelines manuals and specific manuals regarding signage that must be followed strictly. The manuals vary from company to company, but I promise they have a lot of very nit picky details.

In my shop we use a pretty wide variety of software for sign design and production -industry specific programs like Flexi, EnRoute, Onyx Thrive, RasterLink Pro as well as mainstream graphics applications like Adobe Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop and CorelDRAW. I've seen these implied digs at mainstream design programs before, but I've used CorelDRAW to design signs much bigger and far more elaborate than any highway sign.

The only advantage GuideSign has is a big library of traffic sign templates to semi-automate the process of composing a very specific category of signs. For my sign design purposes using GuideSign would suck for all the advanced typographic features and other creative features it lacks compared to those mainstream graphic designer programs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on October 09, 2019, 02:25:56 PM
I have some historical perspective on the involvement of graphics designers in traffic sign design not just from the Clearview saga here in the US, which has been going on in one form or another for 20 years now, but also the transition from pre-Worboys to Worboys signs in Britain from the late 1950's to the late 1960's.

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.  They generally find graphics designers tiresome to deal with--that was certainly the case with Ministry of Transport civil servants in the early 1960's who had to deal with Jock Kinneir's complaints about poorly designed signs--and think of their relationship with an outside graphics design firm as something that is limited in time and scope and ends with a handshake and "Goodbye."

It is not beyond the ability of an agency to produce sign designs that are clean and harmonious in appearance even without the involvement of a graphics designer.  This is what typically happens in state DOTs where guide sign design is handled by a specialist unit out of HQ and proposed sign designs go through multiple levels of review.  Oklahoma DOT has special problems in this regard:  signing contracts are deliberately kept small to promote small business involvement, which tends to lead to small design solicitations; PEFs that do consistently good work (e.g., TEC) handle only a small fraction of the sign design work; and QA/QC for both design and fabrication is, to be polite, very uneven.  Other states that outsource traffic sign design to the district level (often without even requiring the use of a single CAD platform) tend to struggle with similar problems, as do many turnpike agencies.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on October 09, 2019, 10:12:19 PM
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).

I totally that agree E(modified) should be thrown out as well, makes no sense to keep using it given its legibility issues when used with modern types of reflective sheeting.

As for the Clearview letters, the report I mentioned in my first post (link) (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ia5rptcongress.pdf) 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 also demonstrated in that FHWA report, for both fonts:
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/images/fig2_2b.jpg)

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!

Of everyone would still want Highway Gothic if they were equal! If they were completely equal, then the only reason to advocate for one font over the other would be which one you like better!! Of course, outside of the pure choice of font itself, I'd also argue that changing the standard to allow multiple fonts, or worse, change which single font is allowed, would be a frivolous waste of resources.

***However, if it could be shown that Clearview (or any font) were significantly better than Highway Gothic, then I'd advocate for such a font, even if I highly disliked the look of its design.

In fact, before I was aware of the Interim Approval being rescinded, I was totally on board with Clearview taking over eventually, since I'm totally aware that Clearview had turned out to be superior, then arguing against it is purely based on roadgeek nostalgia.

Quote from: Bobby5280
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).

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)_/¯
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 10, 2019, 01:05:15 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

I don't know how many state DOTs employ people trained in graphic design (as opposed to traffic engineers) to compose traffic sign layouts. In Oklahoma's case I'm guessing not many. And if the "layout artists" have the implied benefit of GuideSign's CAD layout templates that makes the abominations in traffic sign design ODOT produces even that much more embarrassing.

Nevertheless, there's lots of principals in graphic design that are proven to work in sign design. Those principals carry over to traffic sign use just like they do with billboards, one sheet posters or any other outdoor advertising medium.

In commercial sign design for businesses there's not a lot of "professional kudos" to be handed out for that kind of work, even on the national scale. And each individual sign designer is very different in levels of talent and qualification. There is no standards board conducting tests and handing out certifications. Some commercial sign designers are very good and then there's others who would do us all a favor by choosing a different career path. Some companies have standards for who they hire. Other low-cost outfits only require the computer jockey to have a pulse.

For me personally, legibility is the top concern in designing signs for commercial businesses or institutions like the US Army, non-profit groups, etc. If you can't read an outdoor sign at an acceptable distance while driving your vehicle then the sign is crap. Unfortunately there are many variables that creep into the picture. The client wants to put too many elements in the layout, such as instantly forgettable elements like phone numbers. The client doesn't want a sign that big or that expensive. Make it smaller, make it non-lighted and cut the price. Some clients do their own DIY logos and sign layouts, usually to varying degrees of failure. But you have to make their crap somehow "work" anyway. At times the job is like trying to solve a crossword puzzle without half the clues or half the letters in the alphabet. And you often have to re-invent the wheel with each project.

Quote from: stevashe
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.

The biggest offending factor in Clearivew is letters of the same size and width as Series Gothic require a wider sign panel. Meeker and Associates should have figured out ways to make the typeface more legible while matching the metrics of Series Gothic.

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.

Anyway, the one thing Monotype did right with Arial when they created it is they made it match the width and metrics of Helvetica. You could lay out a column of body copy in the 1950's cut of Helvetica then switch it to Arial and it wouldn't use any more or less column space. Microsoft licensed Arial specifically on that feature when they launched the Windows OS. It matched the geometry of Helvetica, but at a lower licensing cost than what Linotype wanted for Helvetica.

Quote from: stevashe
As for the 75% rule, this refers to the nominal height of the lowercase letters, not the actual heights of each individual lowercase letter.

To me, the x-height value is the literal height of the lowercase "x." That especially goes for any geometric sans whose baseline and lowercase heights have a clear, horizontal cut to them (which is the case for both Series Gothic and Clearview Highway). Nudging nominal values based on how much the lowercase "o" overshoots the baseline or x-height line doesn't really matter. And then there's the established, specific dimensions in the font files themselves.

Quote from: stevashe
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)_/¯

In the end, whoever is composing the layouts at least has to acknowledge what he is seeing with his own two eyes and be able to judge if the layout just looks laughably stupid.

Let's take "neutered" Interstate shields for instance. I think I can guess pretty easily how these stupid things came into existence. The motivation is pretty clear. Some executive or bean counter or whoever was in charge decided the numerals on Interstate shields needed to be the same size as numerals on US Highway route markers of the same size. I would be surprised if a traffic engineer was behind that decision.

Neutered Interstate shields suck in any objective judgment. The curved shape of the shield frequently forces numerals into very crowded and out of balance arrangements. And that greatly reduces the level of legibility. If it was up to me I would stick with state name Interstate markers but use larger Interstate shields over the top of smaller US highway and state highway route markers on ground mounted reassurance post signs. The same goes for big green signs. Funny enough, ODOT here does that in a decent number of cases. There's a few state-named I-44 reassurance markers in Lawton with larger Interstate shields and smaller US highway markers underneath on two posts. Nothing wrong with that. But if a 24" Interstate shield must have digits the same size as those in a 24" US highway marker, then the current design of the Interstate highway shield has to be tossed out and completely re-done to create acceptable geometry.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2019, 01:20:26 AM
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.

BC route numbers are supposed to be Helvetica (https://goo.gl/maps/b1Zdb1GJQ8YSR8xk7), though some Clearview numbers do slip through the crack from time to time, given how normal the typeface otherwise is.

Highway Gothic isn't totally dead in BC, but Clearview has replaced it in many places I hadn't yet thought of (photo by me):

(https://i.imgur.com/s344Jou.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 12, 2020, 02:53:49 AM
Guess what may end up in the 11e MUTCD? I swear, this font is like a damn hydra.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 12, 2020, 08:26:02 PM
^^^
So who wants to translate that into English?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Roadsguy on December 12, 2020, 08:40:50 PM
The public comment period starts on Monday, December 14.

Oh, I have some choice public comments alright...
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 12, 2020, 08:46:19 PM
^^^ 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2020, 05:28:17 PM
Considering how many years have passed since the Clearview effort first started (in the 1990's) the FHWA might as well go back to the drawing board with their efforts to modernize typography on traffic signs. A lot has happened with typography and font technology in the past 20 years. Sign industry-specific software is also stuck in the 1990's.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 13, 2020, 05:54:28 PM
Clearview aside, sign design software seems to be doing more of a disservice than making signing practices better. It’s been only since sign design software that we’ve seen an increase in bad sign layouts, wrongly sized lower case lettering (in relation to upper case lettering in the same legend), and weird stretching of letters. This is all because agencies think the sign design software is the same as using Microsoft Word. Designing a safe, quality sign requires the skill of a civil engineer. The use of design software should be a supplement to the process, not the replacement. An interchange guide sign is not a powerpoint slide.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2020, 07:19:13 PM
Misuse of software is one variable in bad sign layouts, but there are plenty of other variables that complicate the situation.

With traffic signs, I'm 100% certain that politics and funding battles affect the final product. I see plenty of sign panels that are barely big enough to hold the message. Or they try to cram additional listings on an existing panel. Both problems are obviously motivated by cost cutting. Here in Lawton they were using street name panels meant only for uppercase lettering yet sticking mixed case copy on them, often shrinking the lowercase letters to 75% of their original size. They would shift the lowercase letters above the baseline to fit letters with descenders. Really stupid looking garbage. They have only recently started using taller street name panels.

I would not be surprised if various highway sign departments had civil engineers punting some or even a lot of the design grunt work to lesser paid, lesser qualified people and merely supervising the results. Again, it's about saving money.

In the commercial side of the sign industry there really are no qualifications needed to enter the field. There is a very wide range of differences in terms of talent and design knowledge from one sign designer to the next. Some sign companies will hire people just on the basis of an applicant willing to work for low pay. The better companies will hire designers that have formal training or degrees and good portfolios of work examples. Generally the designers with formal training are going to be more productive from the outset and care about the quality of their work. But it all comes down to each sign company and its motivations. There are plenty of sign companies only interested in selling cheap garbage. I'm pretty concerned about the growing trend of cities adopting very restrictive sign codes. IMHO, some of that is borne out of a backlash against ugly signs and poorly maintained signs. Well designed custom signs can add character to a city's business districts. Ugly signs contribute to blight.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2020, 07:22:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2020, 07:58:32 PM
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 a sign panel being 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 14, 2020, 04:50:08 PM
^^^ 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.

But what if Congress continues to mandate its inclusion as an acceptable option?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:16:18 PM
Here is the proposed MUTCD text:
Quote
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.

Only place names, street names, and highway names, and only on freeway (not conventional-road) guide signs? That must sting for Clearview fans. This is even more restrictive than the old Clearview circular. One wonders what the point of including it even is.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 14, 2020, 05:30:06 PM
I wonder if ADOT will re-adopt Clearview (soon to be Series E-Modified (Alternate)) if it is approved in the new MUTCD.  ADOT has been holding off on it due to its uncertain future, but since ADOT has already paid for Clearview, I wonder if they might re-adopt it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 05:43:07 PM
There wouldn't be much left to adopt. If it is added to the new MUTCD–which is up in the air, as the public comment period is open through March–it is entirely possible that states will question the utility of coming up with a policy to allow use of a different font on one or two lines of each sign and decide the trouble of ensuring compliance isn't worth it.

I expect TxDOT to continue to use it for everything, no matter what the MUTCD says, at least until FHWA of Texas slaps them down.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 14, 2020, 06:00:34 PM
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.

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.

I suspect the inelegant manipulations we all dislike (departing from default kerning, stretching or compressing fonts along one axis only, etc.) are largely driven by a desire to accommodate external constraints such as panel size, post count, etc.  Additionally, some of the design approaches that are now mandated (such as APLs) have certain inflexibilities that come into play with long legend.

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.

If Congress mandates that Clearview be part of the MUTCD, then FHWA will of course have no choice but to comply, since the legal framework for the MUTCD itself (secondary legislation--or, to be more precise, a document that is included by reference in such legislation) is established by Acts of Congress (primary legislation).

It is my belief that the FHWA officials who want to get rid of Clearview made the very deliberate decision not to pull the plug on it (again) after the 2018 appropriations measure expired, precisely because they did not want to provoke Congress into making Clearview permanent, possibly through another rider to a must-pass bill.  And the proposed Clearview text does seem designed to make it very unattractive to use while avoiding the appearance of banning it altogether.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 14, 2020, 07:45:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

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.

CorelDRAW does not let users set letter sizes according to cap height in the Text Properties palette or the property bar on top. CorelDRAW is still mostly a print-oriented application where page layout is all about points and distance from one baseline to the next in a grid. Sign design doesn't work like that. Cap height matters there. If I want some letters to be 6 inches tall I literally have to type out a squared letter like "E," numerically set it at the desired physical size, position it specifically and then type out the desired text. There are other ways to go about this, but they're all work-arounds to get the desired result.

Adobe recently incorporated some new type features in Adobe Illustrator that allow users to set letter sizes according to cap height and x-height in addition to the normal Em square methods. Plus they have new object snapping functions in relation to text objects. There is still some room for improvement. But those new type features in combination with the new large canvas mode (art boards up to 2275" X 2275") make full size sign design within Adobe Illustrator much easier.

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). In commercial sign design the physical size of sign panels can be critical, especially when lighted cabinets are involved. Material size limits and the client's budget can be non-flexible limits. The lettering and graphics have to be adjusted for the space. But commercial sign designers have far more choices in how to make those adjustments. New features like OpenType Variable Fonts can lead to better designs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 14, 2020, 08:15:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

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.

My scripts don't parse text objects for descenders, which are the only real concern with the FHWA series.  My bodge is basically just to substitute letters of equal width without descenders--e.g., b for p, v for y, and so on--as needed for aligning and panel-drawing operations where the results would be affected by the presence of descenders, and then simply put back in the correct letters when I am finished.

With Clearview it is much more difficult and there functionality to parse text objects for characters would be useful.  Clearview has at least two levels of ascender above the caps line.  I've gotten used to composing "shadow" Series E Modified legend blocks that I use as positioning controls around the identical legend in Clearview.

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).

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).  What I have made for CorelDRAW consists of basic box-drawing and aligning scripts that I downloaded long ago from Oberon Place (a CorelDRAW users' site) and adapted for use drawing traffic signs.  These are not intended for actual production--I've used them mainly to make sign mockups for this forum (example (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=File:Wsdot-special-notice-for-cyclists.png)).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Henry on December 14, 2020, 09:55:10 PM
IIRC, these are the FHWA and Clearview equivalents:

Series B -- Clearview 1-B/1-W
Series C -- Clearview 2-B/2-W
Series D -- Clearview 3-B/3-W
Series E -- Clearview 4-B/4-W
Series E(M)/EE(M) -- Clearview 5-B/5-W/5-WR
Series F -- Clearview 6-B/6-W
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 14, 2020, 10:21:29 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler
My scripts don't parse text objects for descenders, which are the only real concern with the FHWA series.

Curved capital letters (C, G, J, O, Q, S, U) overshoot the baseline and/or cap height line in Series Gothic as well as the vast majority of other typefaces. Some speciality display fonts with tough or technical looks might have cap letters all in the same size. For example this is true with a typeface like Bank Gothic (bundled with CorelDRAW) but not with Series Gothic or Clearview Highway. That's why, in CorelDRAW, I start out with a dummy letter like "E," size it to the desired size and either use that dummy letter to type into or copy its attributes to other text strings nearby. CorelDRAW has an align to baseline function for type objects, which is really handy for quickly aligning and distributing type objects in a new design or template. Obviously this approach doesn't work on every typeface. Many serif "text" typefaces have lots of subtle features that rise above the cap height line and dip below the baseline.

All computer-based font files have built-in dimensions establishing the baseline, x-height line, cap height line as well as ascender and descender values. Those values are set within a UPM size (Units Per Em). The UPM size can vary from one font file to the next. Most fonts tend to be drawn in a 1000 UPM value (common with Postscript fonts). Then you get something like Arial, which has a 2048 UPM value (common with some TrueType fonts). Clearview Highway has a 1448 UPM value, with TrueType outlines. I see those values by opening the font files in FontLab Studio. It's possible for design software to examine a font file's built-in dimensions to automatically extrapolate a correct cap height value. For Clearview, the cap height is 1011, x-height is 817, ascender is 1313, descender is -447; baseline obviously is zero. Funny thing: when you open a font like Clearview 5WR in FontLab Studio you'll see the cap height on a glyph like "E" or "T" falls a little below the font's cap height line. And those curved letters like "O" still overshoot it. Go figure.

Extracting the distance between baseline and cap height line in a font file to set a proper cap letter size will work with most fonts. But it won't work with others. There's a decent number of text fonts and script fonts where both the x-height and cap height lines are set well above where they should be. Bickham Script Pro is a really beautiful script typeface with very impressive OpenType features. But its dimensions are a joke. The cap height line is way above the logical tops of the letters. I think this is due to the really large swash alternate glyphs present in the typeface.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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).

I couldn't say for myself since I don't have licenses for either one of those applications. But it would make sense for either of those applications to confine sign panel sizes in increments of 6" or 12". In Oklahoma most big green sign panels are made with those 12" tall extruded metal bars that are bolted together to make one big panel. The bars are usually ordered in specific widths and not something a sign shop would want to manually trim to some random size.

In mainstream vector graphics applications or commercial sign industry specific applications the user just sets the panel size based on his judgment, be it through specific numerical dimensions and positioning or just eye-balling it by hand. I prefer being very specific about it. The eyeball approach is for hacks, IMHO.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 14, 2020, 11:42:50 PM
Differences in cap height and ascender/descender measurements are kind of academic in MUTCD-based design because text sizes for a given context are specified in cap heights in inches. 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. Thus, given a certain cap height, one can easily calculate a bounding box for a line of text, the vertical extents of which will always be the same, regardless of the actual text being set.

This is made even simpler by the fact that the x-height of FHWA Series is 3/4 that of the cap height. This x-height is a very nice creature comfort. Trafikkalfabetet has an x-height of 5/7, and thus Norwegian sign layouts are infected with tons of odd sevenths that propagate through the design as a direct result of this choice. American sign designers have tended to handle Clearview's 21/25 x-height by ignoring it and calculating line spacing using FHWA Series's 3/4 x-height, which would be against the proposed MUTCD text.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2020, 12:05:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114
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.

Nevertheless, the cap letters with curved features (such as "O") overshoot the baseline and cap height line. Not all sign design software lets designers set letter sizes according to cap height accurately. Often the designers must do things like the kludge approaches I described earlier to set cap letter sizes correctly. Even if the design application is extracting the font file's built-in dimensions correctly the letters within the font file may not conform to the defined baselines and cap height lines (as is the case with Clearview Highway).

Regarding the 3/4 rule, thankfully I never have to bother with that. If a typeface must have an x-height 3/4 the size of the cap height that must be built into the design of the typeface itself. There should NEVER be an instance where a designer has to artificially scale lowercase letters to fit such a rule. Doing so totally botches the stroke balance between the capital letters and lowercase letters. The user might as well be typing with two different typefaces when doing that. It's totally unacceptable.

If we want to get into nit-pick territory, Clearview Highway's lowercase set overshoots the 3/4 barrier while Series Gothic comes up short. The lowercase "x" is less than 75% the height of a cap letter "E" or "M". Only when you select a glyph like "o" does Series Gothic barely hit that 75% level.

We're over 20 years into this nonsense now. Given how technology has changed, particularly with new developments such as OTF Variable Fonts and the design flexibility they offer, I think the FHWA should just start over. The current effort is badly outdated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 15, 2020, 12:38:55 AM
Nobody else has to bother with the 3/4 rule either; this is baked into the design of FHWA Series and so anyone just setting the cap size and going will automatically comply with the rule. The problem is that some designers see that rule and hypercorrect it by taking 3/4 of 3/4 and end up with an x-height of 9/16–clarifying this is something that is worth trying to get changed in the public comment period.

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.

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. Most OTF features would be technology for technology's sake and not actually helpful to designing a road sign to existing MUTCD standards.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 15, 2020, 10:51:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kalvado on December 15, 2020, 10:56:15 AM
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.
Which, to a large extent, is an indication that font size, rather than especially drawn symbols, is what drives 'increased visibility"
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on December 15, 2020, 01:54:43 PM
Meanwhile, in Michigan...

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:18:11 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 15, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 15, 2020, 07:25:42 PM
"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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2020, 07:44:01 PM
"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.

There's no way any more than 1 in a thousand people could tell the two apart. We are talking minor differences in legibility.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2020, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: Scott5114
I'd oppose requiring use of any fancy OTF features for sign design.

Native small capitals character sets would be useful for cardinal directions, given the current MUTCD calls for such an approach. Complete numerator and denominator figures (zero thru 9 in both) would allow for any possible fraction. Plenty of OpenType fonts feature those and pre-made fractions for odd spacing combinations. Such fonts often have multiple sets of digits set in either tabular lining or proportional lining.

Quote from: Scott5114
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.

Truly professional quality typefaces are not produced through a kind of hobbyist, grass-roots effort. Even some open source type families hosted thru sites like Google Fonts are produced to high, professional standards by people (or teams of people) who design typefaces full time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mrsman on December 16, 2020, 07:28:54 AM
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.

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.

I see this as a causation/correlation problem.  It is true that the new signs are leading to fewer crashes but to suggest that the new signs (and more specifically the new font) causes fewer crashes is a fallacy.  Larger font is certainly helpful but the statement from MDOT was not likely to be helpful.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2020, 02:33:59 PM
From MDOT's Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/MichiganDOT/posts/10158454297369927
Quote
"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.

Ease of legibility is primarily a small signage issue, where the affect on metalwork size and cost is minimal.  The big impetus for the rollout of Clearview has been whacking 4 or 5 feet off the width of BGSs.  Not only does this reduce the cost of sign itself, but the wind loads on the structure are also reduced.  Like many of the others posting here, my main concern about the use of Clearview has been sloppy use of font kernals.  The early ones on the West Virginia Turnpike looked like they were pasted up in Kindergarten class.

As for the small signs, the use of bold fonts tend to blur the visibility from a distance.  I've not seen Clearview used much on street signs without the boldness.  That, plus the danglers that don't fit with the height of the sign weakens any argument about better legibility.  But when the small Clearview signs are designed properly, they do catch my eye quicker than the FHWA Gothic fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 16, 2020, 02:39:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on December 16, 2020, 05:50:05 PM
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.

In fact I recall hearing the exact opposite, that Clearview requires larger signs, and the 5-W-R variant was produced with tighter spacing so it actually fits on signs of the same size as with Series E(m).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2020, 10:00:09 PM
Yeah, Clearview Highway does not use less horizontal space than Series Gothic when the cap letters are set at the same size and the corresponding font weight is chosen, such as Clearview 5W in place of Series Gothic E/M. If anything Clearview 5WR consumes about the same amount of horizontal space as Series E/M, not any less. That's all thanks to tighter tracking in 5WR vs 5W.

Two different font files for two different spacing profiles is a pretty outdated approach. Some OTF Variable Fonts have Optical axis sliders, which change the letter spacing and even the letter glyphs in some cases, based on the optical size desired.

As far as legibility goes, some of the characters in Clearview are better than their counterparts in Series Gothic and vice versa. The lowercase 2-story "a" is a more legible design in Clearview since it is more opened. But Clearview's lowercase "g" has more closed off descender than the "g" in Series Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jzn110 on December 16, 2020, 11:24:40 PM
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.

Michigan uses Arial on all of its state park signage, including the fancy wooden entrance signs.

Strangely, as a designer and font snob, I don't entirely hate it.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2020, 01:01:57 AM
The only time I have ever thought Arial looked decent on a sign was when I worked on the main gate sign for Altus Air Force Base. The Air Force branding standards dictated Arial Black be used for the polished fabricated chrome letters to be installed on the monument. The lettering was all caps and centered underneath a polished chrome Air Force bird logo. Not a bad look there. But the letters weren't distorted out of their normal proportions, like how I see Arial used on so many other commercial signs. I cannot warm up to the lowercase character set in Arial at all.

I dislike the style of Arial, dislike the motives on why it was even made (a cheaper to license alternative to Helvetica), and really hate how it is misused on commercial signs. But Monotype has put a lot of work into it. The current version of Arial bundled in Windows 10 is far more advanced in its capabilities than any of these highway fonts we've been discussing. The regular and bold weights have 4503 glyphs, the italic and bold-italic weights have 3279 glyphs each. Arial Black has only 1030 glyphs, covering just the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic ranges. At least it has native small capitals! It also has a bunch of built in symbols and various numeral sets (tabular lining, proportional lining, proportional old style, numerator/denominator figures).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 17, 2020, 01:22:40 AM
And about 120 or so of those glyphs would actually be legal for use with the MUTCD. Why spend FHWA money designing ß or § or ☭ in FHWA Series, when none of those are allowed on US road signs to begin with? And as much as I like old-style numerals they have absolutely no place on road signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 17, 2020, 12:13:45 PM
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.

[Tail tucked between legs].  I have to admit that my main source has been from Roadgeek commentary on these forums since the rollout of Clearview, then watching for instances of it along the highways.  Signage was sometimes under my sphere of authority, and I do recall being in meetings with a client where the “sign guy”  always piped up “Or you could use Clearview”  as the answer to many unrelated issues related to signage.  But I personally have not been involved with signage issues other than content.

I also apologize if anyone was upset about my comments on the safety improvements postulated by the developer of the Clearview font.  In my world, you’ve got to prove any safety claims beyond a shadow of a doubt (and in many cases, we find that certain suppliers drop such claims even if they can prove them).

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.

If I switch to the smaller signs, the “75% Mistake”  seems to bear me out.  It might be a mistake, but there is no doubt that the 75% lower case letters significantly reduces the width of the sign.  Which may be why we keep seeing these signs en masse.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 17, 2020, 01:21:15 PM
I think there are a couple of things going on here in terms of Clearview triggering a width reduction in some jurisdictions that haven't already been mentioned.

*  One of the selling points of Clearview (especially in the heavily tested 5-W and 5-W-R typefaces) was its potential to allow agencies to avoid upgrading from 16 in capital letter height to 20 in for overhead signs.  A width reduction makes sense if the comparison is between Series E Modified with 20 in caps and 5-W with 16 in caps.

*  The interim approval for Clearview coincided with a general rolling-out of mixed-case rather than all-caps for conventional-road guide signs.  After 2009 this was mandated by the MUTCD, without any requirement for increase in capital letter height (though in fact some jurisdictions, such as Texas, took the opportunity to move to 8 in caps so that overall sign area remained about the same).  This has the potential for reduced sign width in jurisdictions that moved to mixed-case in thinner Clearview typefaces while keeping 6 in capital letter height.



I am still mulling over FHWA's suggested language for Clearview in the MUTCD.  I am not committed to their agenda (as I understand it) of getting rid of it altogether, because my main concern is that guide signs should have a compositionally neat appearance, and I consider this to be just as possible with Clearview as it is with the FHWA series.  I do recognize that in practice, Clearview has interacted with state DOT QA/QC processes (or rather the lack of them) in ways that has led to bad results.  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 do disagree with the 84% interline spacing requirement.

TL;DR--I just don't know if this is worth the fight that would likely ensue with state DOTs in Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which have a combined population of about 50 million (one-sixth the US population) and various standards that call for the use of Clearview outside the tight envelope FHWA wants to add to the MUTCD.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on December 17, 2020, 02:20:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 17, 2020, 05:18:40 PM
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.

Agreed.  But the issues are more than just general legibility.  Clearview gets tangled up in some other issues that the MUTCD is trying to address: narrow versions shouldn't be used in "negative" contrast; Clearview shouldn't be used with all capitals; larger Clearview fonts shouldn't be used on smaller signs where the font height causes danglers and hanglers, etc., etc.  Folks have already suggested in this thread that Clearview would work just fine if Sign Engineers were involved instead of word processors.  Perhaps so, but even they seem to keep running into new problems and so the "rules of proper use" get even more complex as time goes on.  FHWA is certainly more concerned about the use of Federal highway money that results in poor quality signage.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 17, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Henry on December 17, 2020, 08:25:20 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: I-35 on December 18, 2020, 12:17:58 PM
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).

QFT.  And I thought I had read somewhere that the reflective sheeting was different (or older) on the control Series E signs versus ones displayed in Clearview.  The TTI at Tx A&M shouldn't get a pass on this either, since I think they were involved with publishing the studies.

If I were more cynical, I'd say Clearview was a solution in search of a problem, and exists only to funnel DOT and municipality money into the pockets of one man.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 18, 2020, 01:23:49 PM
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).

Folks often confused Georgia D with Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 18, 2020, 06:58:18 PM
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.


My bad.  Looks like my reference to a previous post in this thread already addresses this.  Neither of these look like FHWA Series D, probably because of the schmushed kerning.  GDOT started changing over to these along I-95 right about the rollout of Clearview.  Many of these "new" signs on I-95 were replaced or relocated during the widening projects back in the early-to-late 2000s.


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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 19, 2020, 01:20:49 AM
I know this deviates from the topic at hand a little, but here's a comparison of three different "Series D" lettering styles:

- FHWA Series D (TrueType Font)
- "Georgia D", derived from Page Studio Graphics HGDxymbols Mac font from 1998
- Roadgeek Series D

It might help a little bit at differentiating between the various Series D and Clearview's equivalent. All of the letters on my example are 48 point font, using Sketch on a Mac.  I say "almost" with the Georgia D because the letter spacing is slightly off and GDOT often used a squared off "D" instead of the typical "D" seen here. Back in the late 1970s, Syracuse NY used the exact same lettering, albeit with dotted Is and Js, for their street name blades. I don't know if this was an unofficial official mixed cased Series D that wasn't really sanctioned back then or not. The "Georgia D"/Page Studio Graphics version still shows up on road signs all over the place. I don't know which version of Series D is suppose to be the official. I always thought the FHWA version was for plans and illustrations and the dotted/not squared "D" version of "Georgia D" was suppose to be the actual lettering used on signs.

(http://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/series_d.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on December 20, 2020, 07:09:16 PM
What you have as FHWA Series D is the vanilla version of the lowercase characters found in the Standard Highway Signs book; this is the official set of lowercase characters specified by the federal government. The other set of lowercase characters, which you used for Georgia D, is the unofficial "chocolate" set, which probably predates Page Studio Graphics by a few decades (I remember seeing those glyphs in the early 90s, for instance). More info (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27280.msg2523605#msg2523605)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Henry on December 23, 2020, 08:45:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 24, 2020, 12:19:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on December 24, 2020, 05:50:07 PM
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.

IDOT and ISHTA have been sticking to Series E(m) or Series EE(m) on all of their signing projects in the Chicago area. The Clearview signs are starting to look outdated.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tylert120 on December 25, 2020, 01:58:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on December 29, 2020, 11:24:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on December 30, 2020, 11:47:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on December 31, 2020, 12:11:26 AM
I don't think South Carolina will drop it any time soon.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on December 31, 2020, 12:33:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: OracleUsr on January 01, 2021, 12:46:44 AM
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.

That would be a welcome change. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vtk on January 05, 2021, 07:01:21 AM
I can confirm, OhioDOT hasn't (to my knowlege) put up new Clearview signage in a few years.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on January 05, 2021, 08:34:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 05, 2021, 11:44:08 AM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on January 05, 2021, 02:04:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: I-35 on January 05, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
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.

NTTA's signage on Dallas North Tollway is fairly recent (<10 years) and some is in FHWA E Mod, esp. south of Belt Line.  They have been slowly replacing across the network with Clearview, though.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on January 05, 2021, 04:47:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2021, 05:04:06 PM
In Kentucky, and I suspect West Virginia as well, new signage seems to be dependent on when the plans were drawn up relative to FHWA's changes on Clearview policy. Signs that were designed to be Clearview prior to rescission of the interim approval stayed Clearview. But now that Clearview is back in favor, there are still some Standard Alphabet signs going up that were designed while Clearview was verboten.

West Virginia installed new Clearview replacement signs along I-79 between Charleston and Clay. Last time I was up that way, which was after Clearview had been reinstated, new replacement signs had been erected between Clay and Flatwoods. They were in the FHWA font. They must have been designed while Clearview was disallowed.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on January 05, 2021, 05:32:52 PM
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 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.

But with the new sign installs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1197883,-84.4988467,3a,41.1y,202.18h,94.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st222SGdad2R3MWrogZiCTA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Ohio, I like seeing the larger exit tabs along with the return of FHWA font. Looks similar to and as clean as Minnesota's (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9762152,-93.2467768,3a,49.8y,210.09h,98.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj8mKZW93LblZHyNE_08-MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Missouri's (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7720386,-90.5035938,3a,21y,121.29h,99.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skEzC90wuVUEVnWm-9WCZBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) to me (think both MN and MO were heavy dancing arrow users like OH in the past too, at least in Kansas City for MO). Now all Ohio needs is to use APL signs a bit more, don't think I've seen any in the state outside of Toledo.

Also does anyone have photos of the new I-270, I-670 and Easton/Morse/161 signs since a new NB 270 C/D lane was added last year? The old signs were some of my least favorite in the state, interested to see how Ohio did the new ones.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 05, 2021, 06:20:56 PM
Here in Queen Creek, they have seemed to go back and forth on the policy.  Some new Clearview street blades went up in late 2018 and early 2019 alongside some FHWA signs, but all new 2020 installs seem to be FHWA.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on February 12, 2021, 11:37:00 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2021, 06:27:54 PM
Examples of EE(m) signs?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: bing101 on February 12, 2021, 07:05:04 PM



Here is a Cool video on the 2 fonts.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on February 12, 2021, 11:56:46 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jzn110 on February 13, 2021, 12:16:59 AM
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.

FHWA signs still get posted in some areas in Michigan where the signs are made by County or municipal road agencies. Everything I've seen on state roads lately has been Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: steviep24 on April 30, 2021, 03:49:50 PM
Vox just did a video on highway fonts.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 30, 2021, 04:07:07 PM
A few comments off the top of my head after watching:

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)

2. The example showing the same word in Clearview vs. Gothic didn't use appropriate kerning for the Gothic version. Not exactly a fair and accurate comparison.

3. At the end, they implied that Highway Gothic was more American because America is "blunt, stumbling, and loud". Okay.

4. The sign at 3:48 is right by my house. That's cool.

5. The comments under the video make me laugh.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 04:42:19 PM
It's worth noting that the guy they interviewed for that is Tobias Frere-Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Frere-Jones), a dude that's designed hundreds of fonts, including Gotham, Whitney (the Discord font), and Interstate, which is a modification/redrawing of Series E(M) for general non-signage design usage. Meaning this guy has personally sat down and spent a bunch of hours tinkering with Series E(M) himself. He doesn't work for Meeker & Associates, so I think he's as close as you can get to a neutral expert on the topic.

And of course, if you look at that example slide that doesn't use appropriate kerning for FHWA Series...guess which company provided it?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Henry on April 30, 2021, 09:32:49 PM
A few comments off the top of my head after watching:

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)
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: I-35 on May 04, 2021, 10:49:36 AM
Has Meeker publicly said anything since it has come out that the studies were skewed?  I assume it's fairly difficult to find his island in the Caymans, but if any journalist was in the area, it might be worth a side trip.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2021, 01:14:36 AM
The Vox video on the two highway typefaces was interesting.
Repeat of the YouTube link:
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 05, 2021, 04:10:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 05, 2021, 04:23:43 PM
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'm not seeing that they have.  I have automated download of all their design-bid-build construction plans for which the bid pamphlets list large panel sign quantities, and I can't see a single one that was pattern-accurate and didn't use the FHWA series.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on May 05, 2021, 04:29:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ztonyg on May 13, 2021, 11:34:09 AM
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)

Arizona really likes EE(m) now. In my opinion it's better than Clearview but there are some horrible looking EE(m) signs out there. The new signage on Loop 101 at 7th St in Phoenix is particularly bad.

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

Here's another one (that has now been replaced): https://goo.gl/maps/yqrAkAkF9UX4yQ1h9

Another bad Clearview sign (also now replaced): https://goo.gl/maps/zGKvk2fgkBdAkoWB9

Here's a slightly better but still bad Clearview sign: https://goo.gl/maps/bvbzxiPuBAup3gBz7

ADOT generally didn't use Clearview for mileage distances except in the area of the above links. Typically an Arizona Clearview sign with mileages looked like this: https://goo.gl/maps/AZUBSQagjYbKhVgj7
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 13, 2021, 12:00:14 PM
@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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 13, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
(edit) ^^ I agree with JoePCool14 ... they're really not bad.

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

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 12:08:59 PM

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ztonyg on May 13, 2021, 01:25:33 PM

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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 13, 2021, 01:41:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 01:42:18 PM



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.

Then the sign is a total failure.

I interpreted the sign to mean one of two things:

 (a) Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd ½ mile / Bell Rd & Princess Dr & Pima Rd 2 miles

 (b) Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd ½ mile / Bell Rd ?? / Princess Dr ?? / Pima Rd 2 miles

It didn't even occur to me that it should be interpreted as the first two going together and the last two going together.  And this highlights exactly how the sign is a failure:  drivers shouldn't have to interpret anything when reading a sign.  The meaning should be blatantly obvious.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on May 13, 2021, 01:52:57 PM
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).



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.

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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ztonyg on May 13, 2021, 01:58:27 PM
@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!

I haven't seen a lot of terrible Arizona signs.

There's an EE(m) / Clearview mix: https://goo.gl/maps/s3gydMAjtCxeiJ1X7





Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 13, 2021, 02:09:14 PM
There's an EE(m) / Clearview mix: https://goo.gl/maps/s3gydMAjtCxeiJ1X7

How was this not your nomination for worst sign in Arizona? That is awful.

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.

Thanks for the info on distance signs. Centering makes the most sense to me.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 13, 2021, 02:21:07 PM
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)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 13, 2021, 02:51:34 PM
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. 

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!
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ztonyg on May 13, 2021, 03:41:34 PM
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. 

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

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on May 13, 2021, 06:21:23 PM
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. 

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
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on May 13, 2021, 07:26:53 PM
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.

Well, I remember a ways back in this thread it was mentioned that many state DOTs had a hard time getting the hang of designing proper fractions in Clearview, so it certainly could have played a part.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ran4sh on May 14, 2021, 12:18:18 AM

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.

In Georgia and North Carolina, what I have seen is that those states will make the sign wide enough to fit the exit information on one line, such that there are no Interchange Sequence signs with more than 3 lines of exits.

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).


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.

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.

Why would native small caps be necessary? never mind the rest of those features that don't get used on road signs.

Larger initial letter for directions is not "small caps", it's standard size caps with a large initial letter.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 14, 2021, 01:09:32 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
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).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: stevashe on May 14, 2021, 01:18:09 PM
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).

Exactly, the law was only in place for the 2018 fiscal year. The FHWA actually specifically requested comment on the Clearview rules in the NPA, so I'd suggest anyone who has an opinion should go ahead and comment.

As for the proposed rules, some states have used signs with very limited Clearview, an example of a sign that would conform to them from Kentucky is seen in this streetview link: https://goo.gl/maps/wRCd7Q6nsaFJ8MBq7
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 14, 2021, 06:35:41 PM
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).

Coincidentally, the sign you linked is next to this monstrosity though. Four street names... gross!
https://goo.gl/maps/m81eqC9cu33xLz6L9

Edit: Also, speaking of fonts, is this freaking Segoe UI on these right here, also nearby?!
https://goo.gl/maps/Yv23RJd1DcanDqRc6
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 14, 2021, 06:47:52 PM
Edit: Also, speaking of fonts, is this freaking Segoe UI on these right here, also nearby?!
https://goo.gl/maps/Yv23RJd1DcanDqRc6

No, that's Frutiger Bold.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on May 14, 2021, 07:16:07 PM
Coincidentally, the sign you linked is next to this monstrosity though. Four street names... gross!
https://goo.gl/maps/m81eqC9cu33xLz6L9

Yeah, well I blame Buc-ee's for that one.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: mass_citizen on May 14, 2021, 10:56:56 PM
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).

I commented to that effect. The mandate was for one year. The report to congress was submitted. Time to follow the science and move on from this font.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on July 14, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/highway_fonts/

North Carolina DOES NOT use Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on July 15, 2021, 08:46:09 AM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on July 15, 2021, 09:37:41 AM
  • 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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: I-35 on July 15, 2021, 12:49:04 PM
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on July 15, 2021, 02:29:06 PM
I think Delaware stopped too...at least I can see the new ones in Highway Gothic when I-295 was rebuilt.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on July 20, 2021, 02:03:29 PM
  • 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 signs designed (and possibly fabricated) but not yet installed before Clearview was turned off were still made and installed into 2019 (e.g., I-76 Akron Main St. interchange project).  Other replacement projects (e.g., US 30 from Indiana line to east of US 30) have used FHWA as design was just in time after (or changed with the signs not yet fabricated).  ODOT seems reliably FHWA lettering now.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on July 20, 2021, 02:25:45 PM
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)

I can actually narrow the changeover down to the exact project–the I-35/SH-9E project in Norman (project no. NHPPIY-0035-2(176)). Was let on 2014-11-20 with all Clearview signage, which is what was installed, except that a couple of sign gantries got a change order after the project was awarded...and those gantries are in Series E(M). So if you wanted to dig up the date on that change order, you could probably find a pretty narrow timeframe for the changeover.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on August 05, 2021, 08:15:36 AM
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.

Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on October 21, 2021, 05:18:11 PM
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.



NYS Thruway no longer uses Clearview, they stopped using it right around when the interim approval was first rescinded.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on October 22, 2021, 09:46:40 PM
More evidence here.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia5rptcongress/ch2.htm
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 10:01:48 AM
  • 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.
But, these are in clearview.

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
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: SkyPesos on October 28, 2021, 02:55:46 PM
  • 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.
But, these are in clearview.

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
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: snowc on November 02, 2021, 08:05:41 PM
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:
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 03, 2021, 12:00:05 AM
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:

I may not be so good at identifying Clearview, but I know that Frutiger was used by the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ) until recently.  This is very common in airports in Europe, so it was strange that it was also used on the PATH subways in certain locations.  More recently, the Port Authority uses Helvetica Now.  By the way, the Port Authority calls it typography and not a font.

Speaking of the Port Authority, they went through a huge battle over how to handle the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements with respect to digital signage.  For those who aren't aware, the original ADA required light characters on dark backgrounds.  The original LCD digital signs had black LCD character panels over a yellow backlit panel.  After a number of years of wrangling, the Port Authority paid for the development of full-panel LCD signs that blanked out everything except the characters, which were shown in (of course) yellow backlighting.  These looked weird at first, but eventually we got used to them.  It looks like the Port Authority has gone back to dot-matrix digital signs with yellow characters.  None of which is in Frutiger.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on November 03, 2021, 12:49:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 03, 2021, 03:28:33 PM
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 wasn't quite sure.  It's not the clean-and-crisp Frutiger that is used all over the place by the Port Authority.  We even had to use a special version of Frutiger at the airport in Amsterdam, appropriately named Schiphol Frutiger (after three attempts, that project never got built).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on November 03, 2021, 04:05:35 PM
It looks like they've tinkered with the kerning to get something closer to FHWA Series metrics (although it wasn't done particularly artfully; notice the spacing on "Terminals").
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 12:30:25 AM
Does Maryland not use Clearview anymore? These were installed in 2018 or 2019..

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2496394,-76.6799261,3a,69.8y,55.42h,105.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sm44e5F5Ao5Ud9dbElibbvg!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1821008,-76.8743734,3a,48.4y,223.94h,114.53t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sWbP3G6__Uf1OxMCQOQhUXQ!2e0!5s20190701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWbP3G6__Uf1OxMCQOQhUXQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.76985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 21, 2022, 05:51:53 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: machias on January 21, 2022, 07:43:51 PM
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. 

The Thruway Authority has used a lot of Clearview in the Buffalo-Niagara region. Usually with non-reflective tape on the letters, which is a hoot and half at night.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 27, 2022, 11:41:46 PM
Does Maryland not use Clearview anymore? These were installed in 2018 or 2019.

Nope.  From a recent I-695 plans set (noise abatement contract with some signing content):

(https://i.imgur.com/RPWGtQM.png)

However, I don't know exactly when they abandoned Clearview, since I stopped following the Maryland DOT agencies when the state migrated its procurement platform (eMaryland Marketplace) to a new provider in mid-2019.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on January 29, 2022, 04:52:19 PM
Hmm.  The Maryland DOT highway agencies appear to be singing from separate songbooks.  From a Maryland Transportation Authority contract advertised sometime after September 2020:

(https://i.imgur.com/GTAY8OJ.png)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: epzik8 on January 29, 2022, 06:14:24 PM
Hmm.  The Maryland DOT highway agencies appear to be singing from separate songbooks.  From a Maryland Transportation Authority contract advertised sometime after September 2020:

(https://i.imgur.com/GTAY8OJ.png)
I-95 from the 895 split/merge northeastward has usually been visually distinct from other Maryland Interstates, owing to its former toll road status.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on February 02, 2022, 09:35:18 PM
What's with the overlay?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 31, 2022, 09:38:12 AM
This sign got recently replaced in Kentucky https://goo.gl/maps/vpGCi3ridR5sY1e58

Based on my recollection from last night's drive, it was:

Entering (in Clearview)
Daniel Boone (in Highway Gothic)
National Forest (in script)

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on May 31, 2022, 12:01:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on May 31, 2022, 12:52:08 PM
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.

To the best of my knowledge, contract signage is done in three separate processes.

1.) There are statewide contracts for replacements of existing panel signs that are damaged. At one time, one company had a contract for the eastern half of the state, and a different company had a contract for the western half.

2.) Wholesale replacements of signs along a stretch of highway are done by contract bidding. I remember when signs were replaced along I-64 all the way from Lexington to the West Virginia state line. I believe this happened in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Many of the older signs had center tabs for the exit numbers and they were replaced by signage with flush right exit tabs.

3.) Individual highway projects may or may not include signs. If they do, the signs are shown in the plans and are done by a subcontractor. Some projects may call for panel signs only to be done by the contractor, and KYTC will install other signage. I noticed yesterday that the widening of I-75 between London and Corbin did not include new signs for Exit 29 (US 25/US 25E). This is unusual. Some of those signs still have center-mounted exit number tabs.

KYTC does not fabricate and install freeway extruded-panel signs. I can think of only one place where I have seen Clearview on a sign that appeared to be installed by state forces; and that was somewhere along KY 155 outside Louisville.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on May 31, 2022, 04:17:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on June 01, 2022, 01:35:10 PM
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.

Kentucky still uses demountable copy, even on Clearview signs. The mileage sign in Salyersville where US 460 eastbound makes a hard left at the Mountain Parkway's eastern end was replaced after it was destroyed in the 2012 tornado outbreak. A Clearview replacement was erected and you could very easily see the mounting rivets when stopped at that traffic light. The sign was removed during the recent widening of the Mountain Parkway/460 corridor.

I saw that the corner of one of those Exit 29 signs southbound was peeling off. Looks like at one point, Kentucky refaced the existing extruded-panel signs with sheeting; almost like mounting increment panels over an extruded-panel sign. Something similar was done for many of the signs between Lexington and Frankfort on I-64.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on June 01, 2022, 01:58:17 PM
That's probably what I saw. It looked like some of the extruded panels had been replaced with vinyl sheeting - they were in large rectangular segments rather than strips. But on more than quite a few signs, I saw lettering that lost all of its reflectivity - similar to what I've seen happen on some newer signs in West Virginia (they may be vinyl sheeting overlays).
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: US 89 on June 13, 2022, 10:35:20 AM
Posted this in the Utah thread, but didn't realize this thread existed so I will crosspost it here:

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Henry on June 13, 2022, 08:15:45 PM
Among the states that used Clearview but no longer do:

AZ, IL, IA, OH, OK and WY

...and I suspect that more will follow.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Big John on June 13, 2022, 08:25:36 PM
Among the states that used Clearview but no longer do:

AZ, IL, IA, OH, OK and WY

...and I suspect that more will follow.
WI experimented with it and stopped a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 13, 2022, 11:50:55 PM
Is this clearview?
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)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Big John on June 13, 2022, 11:55:04 PM
Is this clearview?
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)
Only the street name, not the font on the sign.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 14, 2022, 06:16:36 AM
That's very horribly squished Helvetica.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 14, 2022, 11:15:06 AM
"Clearview" written in Clearview is pretty famous on the 10 in New Orleans:

https://goo.gl/maps/Bqc6n7ivJ3pvChjr8
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: PurdueBill on June 14, 2022, 02:06:35 PM
The Clearview Expressway in Queens has also managed to get some sign blades in Clearview relatively recently; fortunately the new BGS is more tasteful.
 
https://goo.gl/maps/aXdNavnHaHUovK7U6
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Android on June 17, 2022, 06:20:36 PM
And this one in Fort Collins, I wonder if the tree was commenting on something...

(http://members.trainorders.com/android/misc/CLEARVIEW.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: tylert120 on June 19, 2022, 09:33:26 AM
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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on August 28, 2022, 11:38:36 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/PHkeiJK.jpg)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on August 28, 2022, 06:01:51 PM
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?

I would imagine that the Schrödinger-esque nature of the Clearview IA, combined with the higher costs and studies showing it doesn't really provide as much of a benefit as originally believed, may lead states to distance themselves from it, unless they've glommed onto it as a matter of institutional identity like TxDOT seems to have done.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on August 28, 2022, 09:29:35 PM
If the states are like Kentucky, if they bought the font, they're going to use it. (Of course, Kentucky doesn't actually produce its own guide signs, it farms them out, and to my knowledge none of the state's sign shops use Clearview.)

That reason is why KYTC uses SharePoint for its public-facing Web pages. The agency bought SharePoint and it's going to get as much use out of it as possible. There are other, better ways to do Web sites, but since they've already shelled out the cash for SharePoint, they're going to use it for everything they can.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Rothman on August 28, 2022, 09:42:59 PM
SharePoint sucks.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: seicer on August 28, 2022, 09:59:10 PM
The newer, cloud-based iterations are quite nice, but SharePoint is designed to be an intranet communication and collaboration tool whose ... collaboration capacity is largely supplanted by Teams. KYTC's website is an atrocity from a usability and accessibility perspective, but it is what it is.

Going back to the fonts - Kentucky is making full use of Clearview again on its major guide signs but I wish the each district would adopt the signing standards that are in use in District 7 (Lexington). As for Ohio, I've seen some newer Clearview gantries go up but I'm not sure if these were that new or if it's just my memory mis-dating.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: amroad17 on August 29, 2022, 02:07:02 AM
At least the newer BGS's are incorporating a mix of Highway Gothic and Clearview such as the Exit 8 signs for Graves Road in Hebron, KY. https://goo.gl/maps/ho23dTSe7ZhBkwvh6  This is a very professional looking sign.

The Exit tab and distance (in this case 1 MI) are in Highway Gothic and the road name or city/village/town is in Clearview.  I believe this is the MUTCD standard currently.

As far as Ohio, I do remember that a lot of Clearview was erected around the 2009 timeframe--especially in Greene County.  Fairly much every BGS and mileage sign was switched to Clearview along I-71 and US 35.  Virginia also went hog wild with Clearview--especially in the Hampton Roads area.  Some of the signs look good, but the overhead sign for I-64 monstrosity on SB Northampton Blvd. leaves a lot to be desired.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 19, 2022, 04:19:02 PM
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??)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: kphoger on September 19, 2022, 04:23:18 PM
(Seriously, what's going on with them??)

They got envious of the IDiOT pun and wanted in on it?  ISHiTA?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 05:17:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on September 19, 2022, 06:21:15 PM
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 grudgingly agree.  I don't like that Michigan went all-out replacing freeway signs (regardless of whether they needed replacing) to get the font out there, but the state designs good-looking signs.  (Gantry mounting of late is another issue...)
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 19, 2022, 08:44:04 PM
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.

Sure, part of it is just because it's "new". But I have a personal preference to the old font. I just think it looks nicer for road signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:49:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 19, 2022, 08:52:50 PM
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.

Also, Clearview costs money. A lot of money. Highway Gothic is free-to-use.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: ran4sh on September 19, 2022, 08:56:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on September 19, 2022, 08:58:27 PM
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.

That's what I meant. The license to use Clearview is incredibly expensive.

Although it would be funny if any DOTs use the Roadgeek versions on their signs.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 19, 2022, 09:58:38 PM
I thought Clearview was a one-time license?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2022, 12:04:52 PM
Michigan signed a lot of route markers using Clearview numerals. I wouldn't be so quick to praise their implementation of Clearview.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on September 20, 2022, 05:45:30 PM
Michigan signed a lot of route markers using Clearview numerals. I wouldn't be so quick to praise their implementation of Clearview.

As I recall, the rule regarding use of Clearview numerals in route markers was still fuzzy when Michigan did those first designs.  In any event, I'm talking about overall composition/layout/font size.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Alex on September 20, 2022, 08:30:30 PM
New Clearview font based signs were posted on I-4 westbound for Exit 82 / SR 408 in 2020. However they were already replaced in kind with Highway Gothic. So was Clearview never permitted there?

There are other signs further north through the I-4 Ultimate project area also in Clearview, such as the Altamonte Sprimgs city limit sign and signs for the Seminole County rest area. CFX uses Clearview but should not have any jurisdiction along Interstate 4.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 20, 2022, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: ran4sh
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.

If a state agency wants to skimp on sign panel sizes, use of a certain typeface is not going to stop them. Just look at what ODOT did with some Clearview-based signs on Rogers Lanes in Lawton. They're not above artificially squeezing or stretching the letters either.

Proper looking highway signs, be they set in Series Gothic or Clearview, look better when the text has ample "white space" surrounding it. This is essentially why I really despise "neutered" Interstate shields. If the numerals have to be that big then just use a bigger overall shield.

Quote from: jakeroot
I thought Clearview was a one-time license?

Yes, a Clearview font package is a one-time purchase, like most commercially sold fonts. It's not something that has to be renewed after a certain amount of time or used on a subscription basis. The font packages are on the expensive side. But "expensive" is relative to the person or agency buying it. $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.

One criticism I do have with the cost of Clearview Highway (and the larger Clearview family in general) is the fonts have been around for quite some time now. Clearview Highway is still used by some highway or turnpike agencies. But how many graphics people are willing to pay a premium for Clearview Text? Font technology has seen some big changes in recent years. The competition bar is a lot higher for new, commercially sold fonts. I look for a lot of features in type families I consider purchasing for my sign design work, such as a large character set with lots of OpenType-centric features. OTF Variable Fonts are a big deal now. Quite a few commercially sold fonts are introduced at very deep discounts, like up to 90% off, to help boost popularity. I don't see Clearview Text competing with that at all.

Various "Highway Gothic" font packages can be acquired cheap or for free. But pretty much all of them have just plain terrible built-in letter and word spacing, among other technical issues. That can lead to a lot of time (and money) wasted having adjust letter spacing. In the case of the Clearview Highway fonts from Terminal Design the stock letter spacing is proper for the most part. Most "highway gothic" fonts have very minimal character sets.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 12:08:05 AM
Most "highway gothic" fonts have very minimal character sets.

That's because Highway Gothic itself has a minimal character set. Other than a few punctuation characters, FHWA doesn't provide any glyphs beyond the usual Latin characters. There's no point in doing so, because those additional characters aren't allowed to be used on road signs. And a type foundry isn't going to spend money to create more glyphs, because that's not going to sell any additional licenses–people license a version of Highway Gothic to use on road signs, so extra glyphs they aren't allowed to use aren't much of a selling point. If they are doing non-road-sign work, they'll license Tobias Frere-Jones's Interstate (or use Red Hat's Overpass), not Highway Gothic.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 21, 2022, 12:36:47 AM
Most "highway gothic" fonts are still largely garbage in terms of quality. People keep bragging about them being free (not all are free actually); the ones that are free or easy to acquire for free are usually so bad in technical terms they couldn't be sold commercially. Page Studio Graphics' Pixymbols Highway Gothic 2002 package is more functional in terms of letter/word spacing, but it's a $239 per seat license. Not free/open source.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Scott5114 on September 21, 2022, 12:40:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2022, 01:33:14 AM
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.

It doesn't seem like sign engineers have much appreciation for attention-to-detail, at least in some states. Better to have the font do it right for you, IMO.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Quillz on September 21, 2022, 08:08:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 21, 2022, 11:14:57 AM
Quote from: Scott5114
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.

It's one thing for a person to spend extra time manually tweaking letter spacing on a non-professional, hobbyist project. It's another thing entirely if the person has to do that across a large series of designs for an actual sign order. The time wasted on all that manual kerning really adds up. In the case of a traffic engineer having to use the same faulty fonts package on basically every layout the issue becomes an even bigger problem. I don't have to screw around with the stock letter and word spacing in the Clearview font files. The same goes for just about all the commercial fonts I've purchased or ones I use via online services like Adobe Fonts.

Quote from: Quillz
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 have a legal Clearview Highway license, both "W" and "B" packages, purchased back in the mid 2000's. I've spent thousands of dollars on lots of other commercial type packages since then. That's nothing compared to what actual sign making materials cost. We recently spent $1070 for a 50 yard roll of printable white type III high intensity reflective vinyl, roughly $21.50 per yard. The vinyl was for a package of non-lighted aluminum signs at turnpike travel plaza locations for a convenience store chain. We have to buy all kinds of other types of vinyl. 3M IJ180 vehicle wrap vinyl costs almost as much as that high intensity reflective vinyl. Throw in the laminate and cost of inks and that equals the starting price of a proper vehicle wrap being pretty high. The prices of steel, aluminum and various plastics have all risen quite a lot. The diesel costs for our crane trucks is pretty bad. More work has to be put into the process of bidding sign projects because the materials costs keep moving frequently.

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.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: J N Winkler on September 21, 2022, 01:07:58 PM
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.

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.

While I am aware of at least one county road department that has used Roadgeek fonts in its traffic standard plans, I don't claim they are suitable for commercial or professional use.  Nevertheless, I don't spend a lot of money or energy looking for ones that are, because I am not a practitioner and my work with traffic fonts is largely limited to producing sign renderings as a form of recreation.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: vdeane on September 21, 2022, 01:21:56 PM
$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?
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 21, 2022, 02:51:58 PM
A single site license for 1 computer is $795 for the full 13 font family (W and B series weights). A license for 2-5 computers is $1495. The cost per computer continues to decline as more user licenses are purchased at once. A multi site license costs more than a single site license. You can see the specifics under the font family buying options at the Terminal Design web site.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

I remember having a FHWA Clearview supplement PDF that had the fonts embedded in the document. But it was password protected at the document editing level; if someone tried opening or placing a page in Adobe Illustrator they would get hit with a password block. Of course there are ways to break password protections in PDFs, but doing so is not exactly legal or ethical.

Adobe Illustrator has a very handy ability to convert any embedded fonts in a placed PDF into raw vector outlines by using the Flatten Transparency command and dialog box.

Quote from: J N Winkler
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.

I have not noticed anything odd about the actual Clearview Highway fonts in terms of letter sizing between different weights. For example, if I set lettering in Clearview with a capital letter M-height of 4" that 4" height will stay the same regardless which style is selected. And the lowercase x-height will be 3.264" across all 13 weights too. The point sizes are all the same (416.787). I have lots of other fonts where physical heights of letters will vary slightly as different styles are selected. In sign design I literally size letters in inches and according to cap-letter height, not the point size of an invisible Em square.

Various letters in the Clearview Highway family do overshoot certain boundaries. It's common for round characters like a capital "O" to dip below the baseline and rise above the cap height line. Letters like the lowercase "l" rise above the cap-height line. That's a design convention of that "office sans" style of typefaces. The tops and bottoms of letters like "E" or "x" conform precisely to the baseline, x-height line and M-height line.

I lobbied and succeeded at getting Adobe to add some font height variation options in Adobe Illustrator to make it easier to use for sign design purposes. You can size letters the traditional way or turn on options to size them by cap-height, lowercase height, the Em box or ICF box. Adobe also added a large canvas mode, making it possible to have layouts as big as 2275" X 2275"; the previous limit was 227" X 227". They still need to add an align to baseline function for type objects. CorelDRAW has had that ability for the longest time.
Title: Re: The Clearview thread
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on October 18, 2022, 11:14:23 PM
Is VDOT sticking with Clearview or are they considering switching back to Highway Gothic? Was surprised to see I-66 Exit 71 signs replaced with Highway Gothic font

EDIT: It looks like these I-66 signs were built when Clearview interim approval was temporarily pulled and are just being put up now. I guess any new signs being made going forward will be Clearview, the new I-66 Exit 69 signs are in Clearview.