The Clearview thread

[machias]

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.

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[yakra]

Oh dear Lord...

[Ian]

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?



Please tell me it was this, because it isn't Clearview.

[deathtopumpkins]

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?

[Ian]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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'?

[Android]

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!



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)



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. 




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)




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. 





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:





Now, I really happened to like that F-bold typeface.  Here's a recent replacement:

[Scott5114]

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.

[Android]

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.   

[agentsteel53]

also note the different shield shape for 18/20.  '57 spec (used for California-style cutout) replaced with '70 spec bloaters.

[vtk]

In case someone hasn't noticed, Ohio DOT has been doing things like this from time to time:



(I-270 EB approaching OH 315 and US 23)

[seicer]

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.

[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.

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.

[seicer]

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).

[vtk]

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...

[Central Avenue]

You're correct. From the interim approval memo itself (emphasis mine):

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.

[Android]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[PHLBOS]

You're correct. From the interim approval memo itself (emphasis mine):

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.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

In case someone hasn't noticed, Ohio DOT has been doing things like this from time to time:



(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.)

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Central Avenue]

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...

[Billy F 1988]

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.