MUTCD 2000... Why are there so many things wrong with it?

Started by index, April 27, 2018, 07:21:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

index

Take a look for yourself.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.18.00.htm


So many things in there are abysmally screwed up. It doesn't appear to use the FHWA fonts at all, either.







What in good god's name is that US route shield? What's with that stop sign? Looks like something ODOT would do. Surprised they got the shape of the Interstate shield right.
I love my 2010 Ford Explorer.



Counties traveled


DaBigE

Part of me wonders why this matters? It's 18 years old and was corrected two editions ago. Likely, someone only had a basic graphics program available, that only included the standard set of fonts that are installed on every computer. Graphic capabilities have changed drastically in that time frame.

What is more baffling is why places such as the Wisconsin DMV still feel the need to create their own sign graphics (see pages 21-22 :wow:) when they easily could copy them from the MUTCD. Hell, the MUTCD even gives instructions on how to do so. Sadly, previous editions (~10-15 years ago) of the Wisconsin Motorists' Handbook had very nice/accurate sign graphics. Warning: if you look elsewhere in the drivers' manual I linked, you may lose your lunch when you see the abomination they created for railroad crossings.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

index

Quote from: DaBigE on April 28, 2018, 04:48:26 PM
Part of me wonders why this matters? It's 18 years old and was corrected two editions ago.


Of course it doesn't really matter, if we only talked about things that were legitimate issues, there wouldn't be much to discuss. I could see something like a DMV or other government agency creating road-related documents without proper signage, but the FHWA's MUTCD, the governing document of roads in the majority of states having goofed up signs, graphics, fonts, and more, would strike me as surprising, even if the technology may or not have been good enough then.
I love my 2010 Ford Explorer.



Counties traveled

DaBigE

Because the MUTCD is a manual of how and where to place TCDs, not necessarily how they're supposed to be designed. Yes, the MUTCD does have sizing tables, but they do not include what font should be used. That's what the Standard Highway Signs manual is for. For example, many agencies will use basic symbols (blocks or cells, depending on what CAD program you use) on their highway plan sheets to indicate what sign should be placed where and what direction it should face, but leave the actual design of the sign for detail sheets placed elsewhere in the plan set.

Does it look sloppy and lazy if the two don't match? Yes. Does it seem silly if the proper graphics exist elsewhere? Yes. But in the end, it's not critical.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister



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.