News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

The Clearview thread

Started by BigMattFromTexas, August 03, 2009, 05:35:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Which do you think is better: Highway Gothic or Clearview?

Highway Gothic
Clearview

shoptb1

Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
Quote from: 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.

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:



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?



mightyace

Quote from: hbelkins on April 08, 2010, 12:02:22 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:
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

KEK Inc.

Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
Quote from: 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.

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:


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? 
Take the road less traveled.

burgess87

Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
Quote from: 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.

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:



Yeah, not sure what TxDOT was thinking there.  Just remember, it could be worse:  the state highway numbers could be Clearview as well.  Blech!

cu2010

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.
This is cu2010, reminding you, help control the ugly sign population, don't have your shields spayed or neutered.

burgess87

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

hbelkins

Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 03:02:01 AM

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

WillWeaverRVA

The only known use of Clearview by Henrico County. I'm sure there's another "Dr" under there...

Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

joseph1723

Here's the latest Clearview sign in Ontario I think this one was installed within these two weeks:


Which was overlaid on this earlier one that was falling apart:


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.

huskeroadgeek

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.

Scott5114

Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
I strongly disagree.  The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview.



You were saying?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Android

#311
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?  

-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview

huskeroadgeek

#312
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 02:13:01 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2010, 12:24:03 AM
I strongly disagree.  The Clearview in Oklahoma is far less unattractive than the Texas Clearview.



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.

Scott5114

Quote from: 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? 

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...
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 10:49:10 AMThe 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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

#316
Ascending order of condensation (6-W, 5-W, 5-W-R, 4-W, 3-W, 2-W):













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).
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

The Premier

#317
Quote from: 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:

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.
Alex P. Dent

agentsteel53

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?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

agentsteel53

Quote from: The Premier on April 11, 2010, 01:21:47 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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

#320
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 01:22:48 PMwow, 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:

"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

I much prefer the 5-W-R kerning, though I'm not looking at it from several hundred feet away at 80 mph...
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 11, 2010, 10:49:10 AMThe 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:



Rather than this:



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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

J N Winkler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2010, 02:40:32 PMI 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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Android

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....



-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.