News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

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

Eth

Quote from: Android on May 26, 2010, 05:18:15 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. 




This looks a lot like the mixed-case Series D that Georgia uses for most of its BGSes.


agentsteel53

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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

#377
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 26, 2010, 08:44:17 PMit 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.
"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

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Android

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:
-Andy T. Not much of a fan of Clearview

Crazy Volvo Guy

#380
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)
I hate Clearview, because it looks like a cheap Chinese ripoff.

I'm for the Red Sox and whoever's playing against the Yankees.

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Duke87

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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Scott5114

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?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

vdeane

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!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Anthony_JK

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

roadfro

Quote from: 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. 

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?

Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

agentsteel53

Quote from: roadfro on June 01, 2010, 10:24:31 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. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

KillerTux

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 01, 2010, 11:26:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 01, 2010, 10:24:31 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. 
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

agentsteel53

Quote from: KillerTux on June 02, 2010, 12:15:37 AMall Diamond Grade 3M on the BGS.

that sounds really expensive.  what do they have against prismatic high intensity?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

KillerTux

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 02, 2010, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: KillerTux on June 02, 2010, 12:15:37 AMall 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.

shadyjay

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. 


Crazy Volvo Guy

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.
I hate Clearview, because it looks like a cheap Chinese ripoff.

I'm for the Red Sox and whoever's playing against the Yankees.

jdb1234

I don't have a photo, but I believe there are Speed Limit signs in clearview in my area.

Crazy Volvo Guy

Quote from: 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.

And that would be a violation of MUTCD.  Clearview is approved for guide signs only.
I hate Clearview, because it looks like a cheap Chinese ripoff.

I'm for the Red Sox and whoever's playing against the Yankees.

joseph1723

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.





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.

agentsteel53

the 6 is not Clearview.  It is an old Ontario font.



rotate photo 180 degrees  :sombrero:
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

joseph1723

^^^ 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.

shadyjay

#399
Quote from: 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.  


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.



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.