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 Subject

Started by ethanhopkin14, July 11, 2013, 02:01:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Alex

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2014, 02:03:46 PM
Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki.

First saw Clearview on this installation at the north end of Interstate 176 in July 2000:



Thanks Zeffy for the analysis!


agentsteel53

is it just me or does that Pottstown/Morgantown gantry have a lighter weight to the font?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2014, 03:48:36 PMis it just me or does that Pottstown/Morgantown gantry have a lighter weight to the font?

No, it's not just you.  The current (fairly heavy) weights of Clearview emerged relatively late in the development cycle--most of the early experimental signs used it at lighter weights.
"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

looks also to me like the variation in stroke thickness is somewhat less. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

sammi

This particular variant of Clearview was one that came up earlier in the design process (as J N Winkler pointed out).



I'm guessing this version is the one labeled "Clearview version 1".

agentsteel53

it's not bad at all, actually.  but I can see why they would modify the initial versions to go even further along the direction they were taking to address their perceived limitations of FHWA.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

PHLBOS

Quote from: Alex on April 28, 2014, 03:41:41 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2014, 02:03:46 PM
Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki.

First saw Clearview on this installation at the north end of Interstate 176 in July 2000:



Thanks Zeffy for the analysis!
Good to know.  I somehow have to wonder if that particular installation was during an initial experimental stage within the state.  Similar-vintage BGS' erected in Delaware County & Philly still used Highway Gothic.

IIRC, PennDOT & PTC went on a Clearview binge years after those I-176 & US 422 BGS' were installed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jakeroot

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 28, 2014, 02:03:46 PM
Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki.

I wasn't sure when the font was actually designed (born, more or less), so I just put question marks. But actual usage is probably a better year anyways.


agentsteel53

what is that three-way rotationally symmetric figure at the top of the gravestone?  been seeing it in places on this forum.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

briantroutman


Map link

This was the first Clearview sign I ever saw, and perhaps one of the first ever unleashed upon the public. I can't recall exactly, but based on recollections of my school years, when I started driving, etc., I believe this dates back to about 1996 or '97. It remained the sole Clearview sign in the Williamsport area for close to 10 years.

The newer "EXIT 21"  panel at the bottom covers the original "NEXT RIGHT"  legend and dates from 2001 when PA switched to mileage based numbering. Before that, I-180's exits weren't numbered, and many guides had blank exit tabs.

And this would appear to be a prototype version. Notice that the ascenders of the lowercase Ls don't reach above the cap line, which would be a change made in subsequent versions of Clearview.

This is a relatively short (about 1 hour) drive from Penn State (where Clearview was initially tested), but I have no idea how or why this sign ended up here.

Big John

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2014, 07:31:39 PM
what is that three-way rotationally symmetric figure at the top of the gravestone?  been seeing it in places on this forum.
US DOT and Certain state DOTs use that symbol or a variation thereof

US:


J N Winkler

#136
Strictly speaking, September 20, 2004 is only the date FHWA issued the Clearview interim approval memorandum.  Texas had already incorporated Clearview into its sign design standards almost a year earlier, in October 2003.  The first TxDOT construction plans set that had pattern-accurate sign panel detail sheets showing Clearview was an El Paso project (CCSJ 0167-01-083) let in August 2003.  For a solid year before that, TxDOT had been uploading construction plans sets with sign panel detail sheets showing signs with Series E Modified legend but including some variation of the following note:  "For this project, Expressway Clearview font shall be used for all overhead signs manufactured with Type D sheeting.  The spacing between the letters shall be the same as the spacing between E (Mod) letters" (this particular example is taken from the plans set for CCSJ 0073-08-134, an I-37 signs replacement contract which was let in September 2002).
"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

DaBigE

#137
Quote from: Big John on April 28, 2014, 07:50:30 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 28, 2014, 07:31:39 PM
what is that three-way rotationally symmetric figure at the top of the gravestone?  been seeing it in places on this forum.
US DOT and Certain state DOTs use that symbol or a variation thereof

US:

It's formally known as the triskelion
WisDOT's history on the use of the triskelion
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sammi on April 28, 2014, 04:45:27 PM
This particular variant of Clearview was one that came up earlier in the design process (as J N Winkler pointed out).



I'm guessing this version is the one labeled "Clearview version 1".

Is that a prayer to the Egyptian god?

Scott5114

Bobby: Keep in mind that FHWA is not in the business of being a type foundry. FHWA specifies the letterforms and spacing of the FHWA Series fonts, but does not create a software implementation of such, nor does it endorse any particular implementation. There's nothing stopping a type foundry (or even a private citizen with a font editor that supports it, like Michael Adams) from creating a FHWA Series implementation with full OTF support. There would likely be complaints from the private sector if FHWA created or endorsed a particular FHWA Series implementation, since it would harm the type foundries which have created and sell FHWA fonts.

For that matter, the way typefaces are handled legally in the US means that someone could do the same for Clearview–typeface designs are not copyrightable. The software required to use the font–the font file–is copyrightable. Meaning that it is legally OK to draw up your own OTF Clearview implementation using an existing file as reference, so long as you do not actually directly copy-and-paste (or trace over) anything from the existing file to yours.

With regard to the sign photos you posted–as you stated, this is just base ODOT incompetence, and has little to do with the font issue. (This particular job is a disaster–I want to say it was the same job that specified "Wichata Falls" as a control city and briefly had a US-288 shield posted in place of US-277.) I have seen them make much more of a mess than this with FHWA fonts (have you seen that pair of county line signs on US-69?). But all of the additional rules attached to Clearview means that ODOT is probably more likely to use Clearview incorrect than FHWA Series.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ethanhopkin14

I couldn't disagree more with the arguments that states should slap whatever font they want on BGSs. The point of the Interstate Highway System was:

An interlocking freeway system throughout the country to improve mobility and infrastructure.
A high speed freeway system designed with consistancy for safety.

The main thing I have with his whole Clearview thing is the Interstate Highway System has a set of design standards for a reason: so you can drive from one side of the country to the other safely at high speeds without trouble reading signs or unusual blind curves or hills.  How can you have consistancy with two different fonts on the signs?   I understand that I am a road geek and the average person doesn't get offended by Clearview like I do, but the average driver does notice the difference in fonts. More than one person I know that isn't a road geek has noticed the difference between Clearview and Highway Gothic. Now, I agree that it isn't enough for a driver to be so appalled by the change in font that they run off the road and end up upside down in a ditch, but the most wonderful thing about the Interstate Highway System is that it righted all the things the US Highway System and various State Highway Systems got so terribly wrong: it gave the states a template for road design and sign design that will be universal throughout the 50 states and is also idiot proof.  It was everything the US Highway System wasn't. And now everyone wants to put whatever font you feel like on signs?  Great, so I have to remember West Virgina decided to use wingdings the next time I visit.   

agentsteel53

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2014, 01:38:49 PMit is legally OK to draw up your own OTF Clearview implementation using an existing file as reference, so long as you do not actually directly copy-and-paste (or trace over) anything from the existing file to yours.

is Clearview's description available as a set of curves, similar to how FHWA is available?

I cobbled together Series A based on a lengths-and-radii description from a 1966 manual... I'm pretty sure Clearview has non-circular arcs and thus would require a different description language.  (Bezier or similar.)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Scott5114

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 30, 2014, 01:44:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2014, 01:38:49 PMit is legally OK to draw up your own OTF Clearview implementation using an existing file as reference, so long as you do not actually directly copy-and-paste (or trace over) anything from the existing file to yours.

is Clearview's description available as a set of curves, similar to how FHWA is available?

I cobbled together Series A based on a lengths-and-radii description from a 1966 manual... I'm pretty sure Clearview has non-circular arcs and thus would require a different description language.  (Bezier or similar.)

To my knowledge, it is not. Presumably such a description would have been added to the SHS book if Clearview were endorsed as the recommended font in the MUTCD. It is, of course, possible to derive such things manually, as Michael Adams did, but that would naturally require much more effort.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

jbnv

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 30, 2014, 01:44:34 PM
I couldn't disagree more with the arguments that states should slap whatever font they want on BGSs. The point of the Interstate Highway System was:

An interlocking freeway system throughout the country to improve mobility and infrastructure.
A high speed freeway system designed with consistancy for safety.

The main thing I have with his whole Clearview thing is the Interstate Highway System has a set of design standards for a reason: so you can drive from one side of the country to the other safely at high speeds without trouble reading signs or unusual blind curves or hills.  How can you have consistancy with two different fonts on the signs?   I understand that I am a road geek and the average person doesn't get offended by Clearview like I do, but the average driver does notice the difference in fonts. More than one person I know that isn't a road geek has noticed the difference between Clearview and Highway Gothic. Now, I agree that it isn't enough for a driver to be so appalled by the change in font that they run off the road and end up upside down in a ditch, but the most wonderful thing about the Interstate Highway System is that it righted all the things the US Highway System and various State Highway Systems got so terribly wrong: it gave the states a template for road design and sign design that will be universal throughout the 50 states and is also idiot proof.  It was everything the US Highway System wasn't. And now everyone wants to put whatever font you feel like on signs? 

"It gave the states a template for road design and sign design that will be universal throughout the 50 states and is also idiot proof." And yet here we are talking about how idiots failed to follow it. The federal government exists to arbitrate differences between the states, not impose standards on all of them. And despite setting these standards, this very forum is loaded with examples of gross violations of those standards.

I've come to the conclusion that having more laws accomplishes little more than creating more criminals. Since the federal government cannot ensure that these standards will always be met, they should just privatize the whole thing. Let a national organization of state and local transportation experts set recommendations and call out jurisdictions that don't follow them. This organization can review fonts and approve them for use.

The roadgeek will revel in seeing the differing patterns among the state. The average driver won't care any more than he does with the state-to-state differences now. Font developers would benefit, creating affordable versions of Clearview, Gothic and whatever other font the experts think is acceptable.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

mcmc

#144
The FHWA's intention to withdraw interim approval of Clearview has made the news. KRXO radio out of Grays Harbor County, Washington offers an article with a quote from an FHWA spokesman:

QuoteClearview highway font not clear enough for Grays Harbor

QuoteNeil Gaffney, Public Affairs Specialist for the Federal Highway Administration tells KXRO, "We plan on rescinding the interim approval altogether and are not approving further use of the font anywhere going forward."

http://kxro.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/clearview-highway-font-not-clear-enough-for-grays-harbor/

Quillz

May 1, 2014: FHWA Series won the War of the Fonts

mcmc

Assuming that these reports are indeed true, how long after the FHWA officially revokes the interim authorization can we expect new Clearview signs to stop going up?

I have an suspicion that many agencies will keep designing Clearview signs well after the interim authorization is withdrawn either because they have a lot invested in its use (e.g., design templates) or out of sheer incompetence.

Takumi

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

J N Winkler

Quote from: mcmc on May 01, 2014, 05:03:11 PMAssuming that these reports are indeed true, how long after the FHWA officially revokes the interim authorization can we expect new Clearview signs to stop going up?

I would estimate about two years.  When FHWA revokes the interim approval for Clearview, it will probably not rescind permission to let federal-aid signing contracts that provide for installation of Clearview signs.  It can take as long as two years after letting to final out signing contracts (whether Clearview is used or not).

QuoteI have an suspicion that many agencies will keep designing Clearview signs well after the interim authorization is withdrawn either because they have a lot invested in its use (e.g., design templates) or out of sheer incompetence.

Either is certainly possible.  The CAD work involved in changing Clearview signs to FHWA Series signs does not take long--about a month for a medium-sized signing contract.  However, there are layers of review that have to be gone through if the state DOT has any interest at all in a high-quality finished product, so I would say that changing from Clearview back to the FHWA Series will add about three months of delay to signing contracts currently in design.

The fly in the ointment is that once Clearview approval is revoked, many state DOTs will not have pre-Clearview engineering standards that they can go back to that still comply with the MUTCD.  Texas, for example, went from 6" Series D all-uppercase on small guide signs to mixed-case Clearview (8" caps) when it adopted Clearview.  It cannot go back to all-uppercase because, as of the 2009 edition, that no longer complies with the MUTCD.  This problem will not apply to states that took out Clearview authorizations but didn't convert to Clearview on their state highway systems (Kansas and Utah fall into this category), but it will certainly be a problem not just for Texas but also for Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
"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

mcmc

#149
^ Thanks, for that, JN.

One other possible stumbling block to Clearview's removal might be agencies' stubbornness. Many agencies use Clearview in uses far beyond what the interim approval authorizes, indicating a clear preference for Clearview (e.g., PennDOT, MDSHA, VDOT). Might an agency simply disregard the revocation of the interim approval and continue using Clearview just because it likes using it?

In many states, perfectly usable FHWA Series signs have been replaced with Clearview signs for what seems to be no reason other than to slap Clearview on as many signs as possible. I have a hard time believing that bureaucracies will reverse themselves so easily. Is there any enforcement mechanism that the FHWA would realistically exercise to enforce compliance?



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.