When does a shield assembly become overloaded with info?

[roadman65]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52152575164_7afe2f23fa_c.jpg


IMO anything more is salad.


Anyway how many shields does it take before overload starts?

This is just to find out personal opinion of what you each think is too much.

[cjk374]

The more the merrier.

[epzik8]

I can handle five, but not six, although six or more are entertaining.

[ran4sh]

Sometimes six markers are necessary, so six cannot possibly be considered overloaded.

[ethanhopkin14]

Five is right out!

[wriddle082]

When you're dealing with all of the Business, Bypass, Alternate, and Truck bannered routes that NC loves to post.  AL likes to do this as well.  But at least NC will post overheads in an attempt, albeit usually futile, to simplify things.

[kphoger]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

[ethanhopkin14]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

I agree.  Even hidden ones.  If it has a separate route number, sign it. 

[SkyPesos]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

North  North  East  East  West  North  North  North
465     69      36     40    52     31      421      67
-->     -->     -->   -->    -->    -->     -->     -->

[wanderer2575]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

North North  East  East  East  North  North  North
465     69     36     40    52     31      421      67
-->     -->    -->   -->   -->    -->     -->      -->

You forgot East 74.   

I think assembly design is just as much an issue, maybe more, than number of shields.

If the signs are posted side-by-side exactly as you described, I have no problem with it.  I'm following only one of those routes, and it's easy to pick out.  To me, it's when multiple shields get stacked vertically in seemingly random order that it becomes confusing.  Bonus confusion points when they don't post arrows in proper left, straight, right sequence.

[kphoger]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

North  North  East  East  West  North  North  North
465     69      36     40    52     31      421      67
-->     -->     -->   -->    -->    -->     -->     -->

I just realized I put 52 under "East" instead of a separate "West" post.  Oops.  You get the idea.

[SkyPesos]

All route numbers should be signed, period.

North  North  East  East  West  North  North  North
465     69      36     40    52     31      421      67
-->     -->     -->   -->    -->    -->     -->     -->

I just realized I put 52 under "East" instead of a separate "West" post.  Oops.  You get the idea.

I would move 69 and 465 to the top of the "North"  assembly, since they're interstates. This would bring 67 (a SR) to the bottom as well.

[kphoger]

I would move 69 and 465 to the top of the "North"  assembly, since they're interstates. This would bring 67 (a SR) to the bottom as well.

Whatever.  All you put in your post were numbers, so that's all I had to go on.  Different shield types makes it even easier to pick out the number you need.

[paulthemapguy]

There's a point at which you should just get a big green sign for the left movement, a second one for the thru movement, and a third one for the right movement.  Put all the routes going in each direction on the correct sign.  Or at least organize things from left to right ffs

[hotdogPi]

I believe there's a guideline that any assembly of signs, regardless of type, should have at maximum 18 sign elements. [Direction] [Number] [Arrow] counts as three.

[Henry]

I believe there's a guideline that any assembly of signs, regardless of type, should have at maximum 18 sign elements. [Direction] [Number] [Arrow] counts as three.

So IOW, no more than six routes should be signed at the same point. Like take this example, and imagine it in its previous form:



On the top of the US 220 South sign, you'd probably see US 421 North, because it went through this area until it was rerouted onto the southern bypass. So the assembly would've been right at the limit at the time, and now that BL 85 and US 70 are set to be decommissioned here, it will be well within the limit.

[kphoger]

I believe there's a guideline that any assembly of signs, regardless of type, should have at maximum 18 sign elements. [Direction] [Number] [Arrow] counts as three.

So IOW, no more than six routes should be signed at the same point. Like take this example, and imagine it in its previous form:



On the top of the US 220 South sign, you'd probably see US 421 North, because it went through this area until it was rerouted onto the southern bypass. So the assembly would've been right at the limit at the time, and now that BL 85 and US 70 are set to be decommissioned here, it will be well within the limit.

Nah.  That assembly can be accomplished with only 12 sign elements.

[ethanhopkin14]

I believe there's a guideline that any assembly of signs, regardless of type, should have at maximum 18 sign elements. [Direction] [Number] [Arrow] counts as three.

So IOW, no more than six routes should be signed at the same point. Like take this example, and imagine it in its previous form:



On the top of the US 220 South sign, you'd probably see US 421 North, because it went through this area until it was rerouted onto the southern bypass. So the assembly would've been right at the limit at the time, and now that BL 85 and US 70 are set to be decommissioned here, it will be well within the limit.

Nah.  That assembly can be accomplished with only 12 sign elements.

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels. 

[kphoger]

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels. 

So how would you sign this, which currently only uses 12 sign elements?

[ethanhopkin14]

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels. 

So how would you sign this, which currently only uses 12 sign elements?

The I-135 shields would get their own blue arrows and the US-81 and SH-15 shields would get their own black and white cardinal directions.

https://goo.gl/maps/32WaEm2VqDQBdBHj6

[kphoger]

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels. 

So how would you sign this, which currently only uses 12 sign elements?

The I-135 shields would get their own blue arrows and the US-81 and SH-15 shields would get their own black and white cardinal directions.

https://goo.gl/maps/32WaEm2VqDQBdBHj6

And two or three extra posts, I assume?

[ethanhopkin14]

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels. 

So how would you sign this, which currently only uses 12 sign elements?

The I-135 shields would get their own blue arrows and the US-81 and SH-15 shields would get their own black and white cardinal directions.

https://goo.gl/maps/32WaEm2VqDQBdBHj6

And two or three extra posts, I assume?

No, you can do it on two (or on one "goalpost"). 

I think it helps isolate the route you are looking for.  If you are looking for the interstate, the blue signs help isolate which way you want to go.  If you are looking for the state route, the separate black and white signs help isolate that too.

[J N Winkler]

I am in favor of not mixing and matching colors on arrows or cardinal direction panels.

So how would you sign this, which currently only uses 12 sign elements?

I agree with Ethanhopkin14 on the basis that economizing on cardinal direction and arrow tabs by using only those that match the nearest shield is not an elegant way of reducing message loading.

There seem to me several options:

*  Use a white-on-green ramp sign (per the standard KDOT design) to allow a cardinal direction and arrow to be used just once for each group of three shields.

*  Omit ramp signing for US 81 and K-15, on the basis that map relatability is poor for the junior routes on an Interstate overlap and most drivers seeking independent alignments of both routes will be following I-135 to get to them.  (KDOT does this for I-70 and US 40, as on this example of a ramp sign near WaKeeney that shows only I-70.  And even when overlapping routes are of equal status, KDOT is not necessarily consistent about signing both on ramp signs:  compare Cheney to Cunningham, both on US 54-400.)

*  Provide separate black-on-white cardinal direction and arrow tabs for US 81 and K-15 (one of each for each direction) as a group, boosting message loading from 12 units to 16.

For local KDOT, however, the least frictionful solution will generally be to carbon-copy this assembly, so as to avoid giving the folks who take "I-35" to Salina something they have to take notice of.