What are the best fonts for a 3DI? I'm not a big fan of the tall thin numbers but understand it's how you fit in wider numbers.
The I-695 and I-276 shielda have tall numbers, but I've seen worse.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8583/16491315789_0e5b572076_z.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8595/16605865621_6fac74d28c_z.jpg)
Thoughts?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7321/27145232994_fafdf7976f_c.jpg)
or
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7342/27672051695_afeecf64fb_z.jpg)
or
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/373/19325451313_928f1742da_z.jpg)
The wider numerals are FHWA (aka Highway Gothic) Series D, while the thinner numerals are FHWA Series C. Even narrower than FHWA Series C is FHWA Series B.
Use of the narrower Highway Gothic fonts depends on the jurisdiction, and sometimes the engineer. Most interstate shields in the Seattle area use Series D, though there is some series C and the occasional bubble shield. There's also one 2di-width 3di, with Series E numerals in Tacoma. Now that's a tight fit: http://i.imgur.com/4zRFrzu.png (I know, I know, that's what she said).
Series D looks best in my opinion, but both Series D and C are acceptable in 3di shields.
I prefer series D, like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fi590%2F100_2686-s.JPG&hash=5797f0c17398cf6c6bdc2cdd02a271812f85a063)
Until recently, NY did too, but now series C is used:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fwinrd%2F100_7390-s.JPG&hash=496ea73d1f22b2bf6feb5a3856cce9b9e06845aa)
Georgia usually uses Series D, except on mile markers where they opt for C instead:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fsign_photos%2Fi285w_ga141.jpg&hash=d7f8a8cdebc9ebf8f2c3fe74b3c3743dd3e01c32)
Series B used to be more common, but seems to have been phased out.
One notable exception, which appears to be in E(M):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ften93.com%2F2017%2Fsign_photos%2Fi575s_ga20_w.jpg&hash=32a354acee85b37d9bd3993e0c91505133735236)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2017, 12:28:30 AM
What are the best fonts for a 3DI?
IMHO, if there's at least a single
1 in the numeral; Series D should be used.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth620%2Fimg%2Fcentraljersey_impact%2Fphoto%2F18534652-mmmain.jpg&hash=ff3cf0918bac75034ab74889de34cc61fff89267)
For all other numerals not containing a
1; Series C.
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/images295/i-295_nj_nt_13a.jpg)
Series B, IMHO, should
not be used on 3DI signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 02:19:43 PM
IMHO, if there's at least a single 1 in the numeral; Series D should be used.
http://image.nj.com/home/njo-media/width620/img/centraljersey_impact/photo/18534652-mmmain.jpg
For all other numerals not containing a 1; Series C.
https://www.interstate-guide.com/images295/i-295_nj_nt_13a.jpg
The issue I have with Series C, regardless of the numbers, is that it appears to be an attempt to fill up as much blue space as possible. In my experience, this becomes an issue as the white numerals start to blend in with the border (they're so close together that they're just about touching). Series D usually results in more blue area around the route number, and in my opinion, is easier to read.
FWIW, Series C can look good, it just often doesn't. Looking at Valerie's photos, you can see that both the old and new shields have good blue area, but the 295 shield in your post has the numerals blown up to maximum size, and in my opinion, isn't as visible.
tl;dr -- bigger numbers aren't always better.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2017, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 02:19:43 PM
IMHO, if there's at least a single 1 in the numeral; Series D should be used.
http://image.nj.com/home/njo-media/width620/img/centraljersey_impact/photo/18534652-mmmain.jpg
For all other numerals not containing a 1; Series C.
https://www.interstate-guide.com/images295/i-295_nj_nt_13a.jpg
The issue I have with Series C, regardless of the numbers, is that it appears to be an attempt to fill up as much blue space as possible. In my experience, this becomes an issue as the white numerals start to blend in with the border (they're so close together that they're just about touching). Series D usually results in more blue area around the route number, and in my opinion, is easier to read.
FWIW, Series C can look good, it just often doesn't. Looking at Valerie's photos, you can see that both the old and new shields have good blue area, but the 295 shield in your post has the numerals blown up to maximum size, and in my opinion, isn't as visible.
tl;dr -- bigger numbers aren't always better.
While you're entitled to your opinion (as I am entitled to mine); do keep in mind that many of these signs (especially ones mounted on BGS') need to be read from a distance & at highway speeds. Since the primary purpose of these shields are to identify their route numbers; the numerals need to be of an adequate size & visible.
While more appropriate for stand-alone signs (or even state-named I-shields) that don't necessarily need to be seen from farther distances; the smaller numerals on I-shields (not just 3dis) tend to be harder to see at distance than their larger counterparts, especially if such are placed next to similar-sized US and/or state route shields that show larger-height numerals. The numerals on the adjacent shields overpower the ones on the I-shields.
Additionally, the increased usage of paler-blue backgrounds
with the smaller numerals on newer signs as of late tend to hinder the visibility of the white numerals even more. Such shields also fade quicker than the darker blue ones.
If you're not found of the I-295 shield example in my earlier post, fine; then look at the examples of the I-695 & I-276 shields that the OP posted for Series C numerals. Such, along with the darker blue background I-shields are examples of 3di shields done right IMHO.
For the Series D I-195 & Series C I-295 shield examples; I originally wanted to use this assembly at NJ Turnpike's/I-95's Exit 7A (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.194795,-74.609303,3a,75y,290.59h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUdIypWKXGqcj-VYCQvmHnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) but couldn't find an available image of it outside of GSV.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 03:33:42 PM
the increased usage of paler-blue backgrounds with the smaller numerals on newer signs as of late tend to hinder the visibility of the white numerals even more. Such shields also fade quicker than the darker blue ones.
I can't comment on the blue-ness of the shield (I've never noticed a difference from sign to sign), but I've always found the opposite to be true: the shields with super-large numerals stretched to the edge are harder for me to read from a distance.
The 695 and 276 shields are okay but I don't like how close the numbers are to the edge. That's all.
I don't like the jumbo sized numbers either. I find them ugly and have no trouble reading the shields with normal (NY) sized numbers. IMO the interstate shield should be elegant, not gaudy.
I don't know if it is just regional preference, but I prefer Series C for 3di signs.
https://goo.gl/maps/wNJ5zQWtYTB2
What font is the I-294 font here?
I've noticed some 294 and 355 shields in the Chicago area use that taller, skinnier font
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 26, 2017, 09:23:34 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wNJ5zQWtYTB2
What font is the I-294 font here?
I've noticed some 294 and 355 shields in the Chicago area use that taller, skinnier font
That's Series B.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 26, 2017, 09:27:26 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 26, 2017, 09:23:34 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wNJ5zQWtYTB2
What font is the I-294 font here?
I've noticed some 294 and 355 shields in the Chicago area use that taller, skinnier font
That's Series B.
Gotcha. And it does look not quite right, but it does work
Ohio, in recent years, has really taken a liking to Series B 3-dis. I kind of prefer that font overall.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 02:19:43 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 26, 2017, 12:28:30 AM
What are the best fonts for a 3DI?
IMHO, if there's at least a single 1 in the numeral; Series D should be used.
Series B, IMHO, should not be used on 3DI signs.
I think IDOT missed your memo
I-55 north of Lincoln, IL, BGS for I-155 to Peoria: https://goo.gl/maps/sK7nw7wB8N22
And the aforementioned I-294 shield that is Series B
The I-294 shield is indeed series B but that I-155 shield is series C.
Really?
Maybe I need the eyes checked, but it looks like the same font to me...
Oh well. I am corrected!
Yeah, the 155 shield is Series C. The 294 shield is Series B. They definitely shrunk the 155 down to be the same width as Series B, just not the same height.
I'm still searching for the funky 355 shields, but a lot of those have been replaced in the last few years, and are more "normal" 3DI fonts
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2017, 06:12:27 PMI can't comment on the blue-ness of the shield
I know that; I just brought such up as an additional observation.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2017, 06:12:27 PM
The 695 and 276 shields are okay but I don't like how close the numbers are to the edge. That's all.
Okay; maybe a text height that's in-between the larger & the smaller numerals can be the
happy medium.
Example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-76%2Fw1_1.jpg&hash=8b2ed72dd5679ae6959d33d88a7b57a87d99ca1f)
Quote from: thenetwork on June 26, 2017, 09:57:18 PM
Ohio, in recent years, has really taken a liking to Series B 3-dis. I kind of prefer that font overall.
The main issue w/the Series B font is that it's too narrow for long-distance reading.
At a quick glance & far away, some of the numerals can look similar to each other. This can especially be an issue in areas where there are more than one 3di are present and interchange w/one another.
Clearview
Personally, I think Series B or C works better for 3di shields, because you can fit the numbers in easier than you would D or E(M), which should be left to 2di's only.
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg)
Occasionally, some button-copy I-shields (even 3dis) did feature Series D (modified(?)) numerals.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffishercats-20070530%2FDSCF0004-close.jpg&hash=14ded25fde8ade5f559e3bfaaabd38bd68a33473)
Quote from: seicer on June 27, 2017, 09:42:01 AM
Clearview
Not/never allowed per FHWA.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
Occasionally, some button-copy I-shields (even 3dis) did feature Series D (modified(?)) numerals.
http://www.teresco.org/pics/fishercats-20070530/DSCF0004-close.jpg
That 495 shield is excellent. With or without the button copy, the spacing between the edge of the shield and the edge of the numbers is excellent.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 09:01:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2017, 06:12:27 PM
The 695 and 276 shields are okay but I don't like how close the numbers are to the edge. That's all.
Okay; maybe a text height that's in-between the larger & the smaller numerals can be the happy medium.
Example:
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-76/w1_1.jpg
Yes, that's quite a bit better.
There are some shields in California that I think are very nice. They use Series D (probably modified):
(image from scpr.org) (http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/12/04/48452/has-another-mountain-lion-crossed-the-405/)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.scpr.org%2Fi%2Fb4ef4f694f904fd15605839cc232f3b8%2F89143-full.jpg&hash=55749c3ef2d410ec83c39ce182519974c7fa61d0)
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2017, 01:35:52 PMThere are some shields in California that I think are very nice. They use Series D (probably modified):
That looks like regular Series D. When I stated
modified in my earlier post; I was referring to the wider stroke width (to accommodate reflector buttons for the above-examples).
Only Series E has an actual separate modified (E(M)) font companion. Officially, there is no Series D-Modified or D(M).
Side bar: most states have since abandoned the use of state-named I-shields across-the board and although Caltrans still(?) uses such for its stand-alone signs (trailblazer & reassurance signage); I believe they use
neutered shields with larger numerals (for better distant-visibility) for its BGS'.
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 02:24:57 PM
Side bar: most states have since abandoned the use of state-named I-shields across-the board and although Caltrans still(?) uses such for its stand-alone signs (trailblazer & reassurance signage); I believe they use neutered shields with larger numerals (for better distant-visibility) for its BGS'.
Yes, they forego the use of the state name on most guide signs. But, the spacing around the edge of the numbers is still better than most 3di shields with Series C (though they also use a slightly modified 3di shield, so maybe they're cheating). It's hard to avoid getting the numbers too close to the left and right edges of the shield, but it's nice when the number isn't too close to the top of the blue area. The shield below has the number scooted down from the top edge quite a bit, which makes a difference to me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/macarthur_blvd_nb_31.jpg)
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_Northeast_Day_2/Images/219.jpg
The left is Series D. The right is Series C. I prefer the shield on the left.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 27, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
There are some shields in California that I think are very nice. They use Series D (probably modified):
For the most part you are correct. Here's a brief run-down on 3-digit interstate shields used on overhead guide signs in California...
"Early" Button Copy - 15" Series D-modified
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images980/i-980_eb_exit_002a_05.jpg)
"Middle" Button Copy - 12" Series E-modified
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images980/i-980_eb_exit_002a_03.jpg)
"Late" Button Copy - 15" Series E-modified
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images880/i-880_nb_exit_008b_03.jpg)
Current - 15" Series D
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images080/i-080_wb_exit_040_02.jpg)
I must point out 3DI shields in California measure 45" x 38" which is 2 inches taller than the national standard (45 x 36). Of the above variations, my favorite remains the 15" Series D-modified shields followed by the 15" Series D shields found on all new reflective signs. My least favorite is the 15" Series E-modified simply because the numerals look squished.
I have been, and never will be, a fan of using 18" numerals in any 36" tall shield period.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
For those that may not know or are unfamiliar with PA Turnpike history; the reasoning for the (needless IMHO) redundancy of I-476 shields was due to this BGS was originally erected prior to the Northeast Extension becoming I-476 (the BGS had a PA 9 shield next to the Series D I-476 shield).
Personally, I would've just removed the direction cardinals and repositioned the original I-476 shield so that it was centered between its old position and the removed-PA 9 shield. Moot point today because this BGS has since been replaced with one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1230557,-75.2362531,3a,75y,247.35h,85.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sylR9iIG2X9uC3TQSLwl_Pg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a more simpler design & layout.
Another comparison exercise (using mostly I-476 shields):
Series D, 16" height (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9771836,-75.3355252,3a,75y,272h,86.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXpQFHKxCGRuDezfhfj_KRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Series C, 18" height (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9370674,-75.3627627,3a,75y,341.21h,84.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9zllZ3UsSd8UMUd-gzEW6A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9zllZ3UsSd8UMUd-gzEW6A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D143.35371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Series D, 18" height (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9129322,-75.3585026,3a,75y,274.58h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssobwgY_1uyHkdTEVc1UfQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Note: these BGS' replaced ones that had shorter 16" Series D numerals roughly 6 months after the Blue Route first opened. PennDOT's
supposed reasoning for replacing brand new signs at this interchange as well as ones at MacDade Blvd. & I-95 was in response to requests/complaints about the numerals not being large enough to see at a distance. If such was the case; I would've went w/18" Series C. The D numerals in this example indeed appear cluttered; not recommended IMHO.
Series B, 18" height (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4377729,-75.4240104,3a,75y,302.88h,78.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s834kFiEZwaAt11IRNPsCNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Not recommended IMHO; the numerals appear anemic.
This one hasn't yet been brought up (a likely-PA exclusive):
Elongated/stretched Series D, see I-476 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0850101,-75.3099645,3a,75y,20.19h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm_6C1O_JTjDadn7prcqGPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Similar style w/I-276 shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1433208,-75.2901575,3a,60y,165.57h,93.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwcOnYCWg_dCUQSUZavoYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
I actually prefer the one on the left. More blue outside of the numbering. I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2017, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
I actually prefer the one on the left. More blue outside of the numbering. I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.
Also prefer left. The right is
a raci-... oh wait, that's NE2's line. The right shield just looks a bit strange. I also think it's the blue space.
Quote from: 1 on June 27, 2017, 07:09:40 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 27, 2017, 06:56:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
I actually prefer the one on the left. More blue outside of the numbering. I actually have an easier time reading the 57 and 61 spec shields.
A great comparison pic for the thread tho.
...The right shield just looks a bit strange. I also think it's the blue space.
If one looks closely at the shield on the right; it appears that the numerals aren't evenly spaced. That might be why it looks, in your words,
strange.
Here's a better (IMHO) example of Series C & properly-spaced numerals. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0364741,-75.3519318,3a,75y,279.25h,83.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA0TCJj_QltDJTOYoip5n0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 27, 2017, 05:40:22 PM
I haven't been, and never will be, a fan of using 18" numerals in any 36" tall shield period.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 05:51:06 PM
The (18") D numerals in this example indeed appear cluttered; not recommended IMHO.
I have a strong preference for Series D, but even I hate 18" Series D. I'll take Series B over that cramped crap.
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fwinrd%2F100_7390-s.JPG&hash=496ea73d1f22b2bf6feb5a3856cce9b9e06845aa)
For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2017, 01:54:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 26, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/winrd/100_7390-s.JPG
For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)
I didn't realize that. Most of the shields along Washington's I-405 use the narrower "INTERSTATE", but some use the wider Series E variant. I always thought it was mistake.
Here's (IMO) an excellent Series C shield, along with the proper INTERSTATE text. Other than the smaller 16" Series D variants posted sparingly, this is definitely the best-looking 405 shield along the route (it's filled with bubble shields)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FC5K85D2.png&hash=89982e7d177b761e185780582069eeffa6c15272)
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2017, 01:54:01 PM
For what it's worth, this is the exact variant specified in the federal MUTCD. (Note also that the word "INTERSTATE" is in series E; this is a detail that most states skip over, keeping the Series C specified on the two-digit shield.)
my personal preference is Series C for "INTERSTATE" regardless of shield width, as it used to be specified. the first time I saw E on a 3DI shield, I was convinced it was a contractor error.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 27, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
I'm not sure which series is which, but I do know that the marker on the right looks a lot better than the one on the left in this photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F219.jpg&hash=5fc85fb6776bbab0762c65327671cf6e09427320)
Incidentally enough the one on the left is ironically a PennDOT produced shield (note the white dot at the very bottom of the blue area, that's the old PennDOT logo) using the PennDOT font. There's a ton of those lining the various interchanges of the PennDOT portion of 476. I'm a bit surprised one found its way onto a PTC sign though.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg)
Occasionally, some button-copy I-shields (even 3dis) did feature Series D (modified(?)) numerals.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Ffishercats-20070530%2FDSCF0004-close.jpg&hash=14ded25fde8ade5f559e3bfaaabd38bd68a33473)
Quote from: seicer on June 27, 2017, 09:42:01 AM
Clearview
Not/never allowed per FHWA.
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
As for button copy on Interstate shields, I think ADOT stopped producing button copy Interstate shields in the 1980s, even though ADOT continued to use button copy until 2000.
Why the discontinuation? Expense? There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 30, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
Why the discontinuation? Expense? There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.
Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?
Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on June 30, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
Why the discontinuation? Expense? There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.
Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?
Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 11:04:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on June 30, 2017, 10:01:22 PM
Why the discontinuation? Expense? There is still some on the 17 Freeway (Black Canyon) Viewed it earlier this week.
Of button copy? It was superseded, in terms of readability, by retroreflective signage. Not sure which year the changeover started (probably earlier in some places, later in others), but the last state to dump button copy was Arizona, in 2000.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?
Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.
I don't see anything either.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 11:04:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?
Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.
I think your eyes are deceiving you :-D -- I don't see anything wrong. Or maybe my eyes suck!?
The 476 is slightly smaller than the 76 next to it, if that's something you're noticing. But that's only to cram it in the 3di shield. The digits inside the 476 shield appear to be scaled appropriately, at least compared to each other.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2017, 01:18:16 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 11:04:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2017, 10:49:08 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 30, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:30:21 PM
During the button-copy era(s); Series E(M) was mostly used for numerals on I-shields:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2127/1653841717_077c705e37_b.jpg
what is wrong with the 7 and 6 on the 3di adjacent (right).
Things look fine to me. What appears wrong?
Maybe the 6 is fine, but the seven seems as if there was an error in it's scaling or alginment. The upper branch off the seven appears thicker than the other shield or the 6 accompanying the 7 on the right sign.
I think your eyes are deceiving you :-D -- I don't see anything wrong. Or maybe my eyes suck!?
The 476 is slightly smaller than the 76 next to it, if that's something you're noticing. But that's only to cram it in the 3di shield. The digits inside the 476 shield appear to be scaled appropriately, at least compared to each other.
Man, no tellin' what I've inhaling through the air nowadays! So, you may be right, but at first the 7 did look a little jank.
Well, I think we can at least all agree on one way not to do it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3qTRnzM.png&hash=0a60753e2e7e8688963448a1603e05fc611729f0)
Personally, I prefer using Series D on all Interstate shields.
I've come around to Series B. I used to dislike it, but in the right application, it can look fine. But for 3di interstate shields, I generally prefer Series C. I think it looks the most "balanced" in terms of aesthetics and readability, and its what is recommended in the MUTCD. However, Series B can look good if it's a bit taller (perhaps 12'' vs 10''), and the shield itself is a bit thinner. Of course, the latter part usually means something that isn't an 3di shield. Quebec actually uses a one-size-fits-all autoroute shield, which calls for Series B for three-digit numbers, and I think it looks pretty nice. Mexican autopista shields also use Series B exclusively, although there seems to be less standardization there.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on August 08, 2017, 12:15:39 PM
Well, I think we can at least all agree on one way not to do it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3qTRnzM.png&hash=0a60753e2e7e8688963448a1603e05fc611729f0)
Personally, I prefer using Series D on all Interstate shields.
I'm assuming your beef with the above is with the I-290 shield. Actually, if one looks closer (
click on the photo for enlargement); those
290 numerals look more like Elongated/stretched Series D rather than Series C. See my earlier post showing the various numeral fonts used for I-476 shields.
290 in Series C are slightly narrower than the above-example.
An older, example of an I-290 shield in Series C numerals (faded shields have since been replaced):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fi-90%2Fe10.jpg&hash=dfaa95d099b88a33e5cbee1cb35b88e3ab3cf93f)