The Clearview thread

[hbelkins]

If the states are like Kentucky, if they bought the font, they're going to use it. (Of course, Kentucky doesn't actually produce its own guide signs, it farms them out, and to my knowledge none of the state's sign shops use Clearview.)

That reason is why KYTC uses SharePoint for its public-facing Web pages. The agency bought SharePoint and it's going to get as much use out of it as possible. There are other, better ways to do Web sites, but since they've already shelled out the cash for SharePoint, they're going to use it for everything they can.

[Rothman]

SharePoint sucks.

[seicer]

The newer, cloud-based iterations are quite nice, but SharePoint is designed to be an intranet communication and collaboration tool whose ... collaboration capacity is largely supplanted by Teams. KYTC's website is an atrocity from a usability and accessibility perspective, but it is what it is.

Going back to the fonts - Kentucky is making full use of Clearview again on its major guide signs but I wish the each district would adopt the signing standards that are in use in District 7 (Lexington). As for Ohio, I've seen some newer Clearview gantries go up but I'm not sure if these were that new or if it's just my memory mis-dating.

[amroad17]

At least the newer BGS's are incorporating a mix of Highway Gothic and Clearview such as the Exit 8 signs for Graves Road in Hebron, KY. https://goo.gl/maps/ho23dTSe7ZhBkwvh6  This is a very professional looking sign.

The Exit tab and distance (in this case 1 MI) are in Highway Gothic and the road name or city/village/town is in Clearview.  I believe this is the MUTCD standard currently.

As far as Ohio, I do remember that a lot of Clearview was erected around the 2009 timeframe--especially in Greene County.  Fairly much every BGS and mileage sign was switched to Clearview along I-71 and US 35.  Virginia also went hog wild with Clearview--especially in the Hampton Roads area.  Some of the signs look good, but the overhead sign for I-64 monstrosity on SB Northampton Blvd. leaves a lot to be desired.

[JoePCool14]

I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)

[kphoger]

(Seriously, what's going on with them??)

They got envious of the IDiOT pun and wanted in on it?  ISHiTA?

[Quillz]

I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)

I've seen plenty of nice Clearview signs. (Alaska has quite a few). It's pretty much what you said: if the proportions are right, it's fine. A lot of it looking bad was because it was new, it wasn't what we were used to. But it also would have mixed font usage, or all caps (Clearview is intended to be mixed case). I used to like it, then hated it, then went back to liking it. It's totally fine with me as long as it's done right.

[wanderer2575]

I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)

I grudgingly agree.  I don't like that Michigan went all-out replacing freeway signs (regardless of whether they needed replacing) to get the font out there, but the state designs good-looking signs.  (Gantry mounting of late is another issue...)

[JoePCool14]

I don't like that some states went back to using Clearview, but if they use it as it was originally intended and design signs that look professional, then I don't mind them. I would gladly take a nice-looking Clearview sign than compressed and stretched Highway Gothic like we've seen recently from ISTHA. (Seriously, what's going on with them??)

I've seen plenty of nice Clearview signs. (Alaska has quite a few). It's pretty much what you said: if the proportions are right, it's fine. A lot of it looking bad was because it was new, it wasn't what we were used to. But it also would have mixed font usage, or all caps (Clearview is intended to be mixed case). I used to like it, then hated it, then went back to liking it. It's totally fine with me as long as it's done right.

Sure, part of it is just because it's "new". But I have a personal preference to the old font. I just think it looks nicer for road signs.

[ran4sh]

I prefer the standard font because with a Clearview sign that complies with standards, it is still larger than a similar "Highway Gothic" sign with the same legibility, and since taxpayer funding is often involved in paying for signage, it is good to reduce that cost as much as possible.

[JoePCool14]

I prefer the standard font because with a Clearview sign that complies with standards, it is still larger than a similar "Highway Gothic" sign with the same legibility, and since taxpayer funding is often involved in paying for signage, it is good to reduce that cost as much as possible.

Also, Clearview costs money. A lot of money. Highway Gothic is free-to-use.

[ran4sh]

I don't think Clearview costs money per sign but rather obtaining the font costs money. But yeah, using the free Highway Gothic can save money that way too.

[JoePCool14]

I don't think Clearview costs money per sign but rather obtaining the font costs money. But yeah, using the free Highway Gothic can save money that way too.

That's what I meant. The license to use Clearview is incredibly expensive.

Although it would be funny if any DOTs use the Roadgeek versions on their signs.

[jakeroot]

I thought Clearview was a one-time license?

[hbelkins]

Michigan signed a lot of route markers using Clearview numerals. I wouldn't be so quick to praise their implementation of Clearview.

[wanderer2575]

Michigan signed a lot of route markers using Clearview numerals. I wouldn't be so quick to praise their implementation of Clearview.

As I recall, the rule regarding use of Clearview numerals in route markers was still fuzzy when Michigan did those first designs.  In any event, I'm talking about overall composition/layout/font size.

[Alex]

New Clearview font based signs were posted on I-4 westbound for Exit 82 / SR 408 in 2020. However they were already replaced in kind with Highway Gothic. So was Clearview never permitted there?

There are other signs further north through the I-4 Ultimate project area also in Clearview, such as the Altamonte Sprimgs city limit sign and signs for the Seminole County rest area. CFX uses Clearview but should not have any jurisdiction along Interstate 4.

[Bobby5280]

I prefer the standard font because with a Clearview sign that complies with standards, it is still larger than a similar "Highway Gothic" sign with the same legibility, and since taxpayer funding is often involved in paying for signage, it is good to reduce that cost as much as possible.

If a state agency wants to skimp on sign panel sizes, use of a certain typeface is not going to stop them. Just look at what ODOT did with some Clearview-based signs on Rogers Lanes in Lawton. They're not above artificially squeezing or stretching the letters either.

Proper looking highway signs, be they set in Series Gothic or Clearview, look better when the text has ample "white space" surrounding it. This is essentially why I really despise "neutered" Interstate shields. If the numerals have to be that big then just use a bigger overall shield.

I thought Clearview was a one-time license?

Yes, a Clearview font package is a one-time purchase, like most commercially sold fonts. It's not something that has to be renewed after a certain amount of time or used on a subscription basis. The font packages are on the expensive side. But "expensive" is relative to the person or agency buying it. $500 or $800 is expensive for a graphic designer with a road sign fetish. The same cost is small for a state highway agency, turnpike authority, municipal government or even many commercial sign companies.

One criticism I do have with the cost of Clearview Highway (and the larger Clearview family in general) is the fonts have been around for quite some time now. Clearview Highway is still used by some highway or turnpike agencies. But how many graphics people are willing to pay a premium for Clearview Text? Font technology has seen some big changes in recent years. The competition bar is a lot higher for new, commercially sold fonts. I look for a lot of features in type families I consider purchasing for my sign design work, such as a large character set with lots of OpenType-centric features. OTF Variable Fonts are a big deal now. Quite a few commercially sold fonts are introduced at very deep discounts, like up to 90% off, to help boost popularity. I don't see Clearview Text competing with that at all.

Various "Highway Gothic" font packages can be acquired cheap or for free. But pretty much all of them have just plain terrible built-in letter and word spacing, among other technical issues. That can lead to a lot of time (and money) wasted having adjust letter spacing. In the case of the Clearview Highway fonts from Terminal Design the stock letter spacing is proper for the most part. Most "highway gothic" fonts have very minimal character sets.

[Scott5114]

Most "highway gothic" fonts have very minimal character sets.

That's because Highway Gothic itself has a minimal character set. Other than a few punctuation characters, FHWA doesn't provide any glyphs beyond the usual Latin characters. There's no point in doing so, because those additional characters aren't allowed to be used on road signs. And a type foundry isn't going to spend money to create more glyphs, because that's not going to sell any additional licenses–people license a version of Highway Gothic to use on road signs, so extra glyphs they aren't allowed to use aren't much of a selling point. If they are doing non-road-sign work, they'll license Tobias Frere-Jones's Interstate (or use Red Hat's Overpass), not Highway Gothic.

[Bobby5280]

Most "highway gothic" fonts are still largely garbage in terms of quality. People keep bragging about them being free (not all are free actually); the ones that are free or easy to acquire for free are usually so bad in technical terms they couldn't be sold commercially. Page Studio Graphics' Pixymbols Highway Gothic 2002 package is more functional in terms of letter/word spacing, but it's a $239 per seat license. Not free/open source.

[Scott5114]

Meh. I never have a problem with any of them but E(M), which has wonky spacing tables in the original specs that both Roadgeek fonts accurately replicate. Any time I do anything in E(M), I just kern the characters by eye until they look right. It usually takes all of five minutes to do.

[jakeroot]

Meh. I never have a problem with any of them but E(M), which has wonky spacing tables in the original specs that both Roadgeek fonts accurately replicate. Any time I do anything in E(M), I just kern the characters by eye until they look right. It usually takes all of five minutes to do.

It doesn't seem like sign engineers have much appreciation for attention-to-detail, at least in some states. Better to have the font do it right for you, IMO.

[Quillz]

As far as licensing goes, I actually bought the $700 license or so many years ago. I've, um, shared it a few times. If anyone does want the "official" font, I can provide it. Totally unofficially, of course. Although I've seen replicas online that look the same. Granted, this is just personal use. Very different from actual commercial/DOT usage.

[Bobby5280]

Meh. I never have a problem with any of them but E(M), which has wonky spacing tables in the original specs that both Roadgeek fonts accurately replicate. Any time I do anything in E(M), I just kern the characters by eye until they look right. It usually takes all of five minutes to do.

It's one thing for a person to spend extra time manually tweaking letter spacing on a non-professional, hobbyist project. It's another thing entirely if the person has to do that across a large series of designs for an actual sign order. The time wasted on all that manual kerning really adds up. In the case of a traffic engineer having to use the same faulty fonts package on basically every layout the issue becomes an even bigger problem. I don't have to screw around with the stock letter and word spacing in the Clearview font files. The same goes for just about all the commercial fonts I've purchased or ones I use via online services like Adobe Fonts.

As far as licensing goes, I actually bought the $700 license or so many years ago. I've, um, shared it a few times. If anyone does want the "official" font, I can provide it. Totally unofficially, of course. Although I've seen replicas online that look the same. Granted, this is just personal use. Very different from actual commercial/DOT usage.

I have a legal Clearview Highway license, both "W" and "B" packages, purchased back in the mid 2000's. I've spent thousands of dollars on lots of other commercial type packages since then. That's nothing compared to what actual sign making materials cost. We recently spent $1070 for a 50 yard roll of printable white type III high intensity reflective vinyl, roughly $21.50 per yard. The vinyl was for a package of non-lighted aluminum signs at turnpike travel plaza locations for a convenience store chain. We have to buy all kinds of other types of vinyl. 3M IJ180 vehicle wrap vinyl costs almost as much as that high intensity reflective vinyl. Throw in the laminate and cost of inks and that equals the starting price of a proper vehicle wrap being pretty high. The prices of steel, aluminum and various plastics have all risen quite a lot. The diesel costs for our crane trucks is pretty bad. More work has to be put into the process of bidding sign projects because the materials costs keep moving frequently.

I remember downloading an early version of the Roadgeek knock-off of Clearview Highway. It was pretty rough looking (auto-traced maybe?) compared to the real Clearview typeface. I don't know if it has been improved since then.

[J N Winkler]

I remember downloading an early version of the Roadgeek knock-off of Clearview Highway. It was pretty rough looking (auto-traced maybe?) compared to the real Clearview typeface. I don't know if it has been improved since then.

AIUI, the Roadgeek versions of both the FHWA series and Clearview originated as auto-traces to sidestep copyright restrictions.  However, for the FHWA series, the traces were produced by rasterizing the embedded vector images of the letter glyphs in the alphabets section of Standard Highway Signs at very high resolution, so there are few redundant points and they can be seen only at high magnification.  When FHWA published the Clearview supplement, the glyphs were embedded as fairly low-resolution rasters, so there were no vectors to rasterize and then trace, and there is a fair amount of roughness that is visible without zooming in.

This said, I use Roadgeek Clearview despite having access to better renderings because letter heights are consistent throughout the font family (i.e., at my working font size of 24 point in CorelDraw, uppercase X is the same height for all fonts).  I do have to use a separate file to assemble Clearview legend blocks because line height is different for Roadgeek Clearview (I don't know if this issue comes from the fonts themselves or CorelDraw) and not all lowercase letters are trimmed to capital letter height.

While I am aware of at least one county road department that has used Roadgeek fonts in its traffic standard plans, I don't claim they are suitable for commercial or professional use.  Nevertheless, I don't spend a lot of money or energy looking for ones that are, because I am not a practitioner and my work with traffic fonts is largely limited to producing sign renderings as a form of recreation.