Guide Sign Information Precedence: Route Shields or Destination Names?

[Ned Weasel]

After seeing a lot of people's work in the "Redesign This!" thread, I've started to wonder which piece of information is generally more important and should take precedence on guide signs: route numbers and shields, or destination names and road names.  In the U.S., it's overwhelmingly customary for route shields to take precedence, being placed first on guide signs (not counting exit tabs), with street names and/or destination names placed beneath.  There are some counter-examples however, if you look at the way some states and cities do non-expressway guide signs and street blades: https://goo.gl/maps/Rn7PCodvHWinCxEM8 , https://goo.gl/maps/vihCrNNDPtoYKopW9 .  In other countries, it's often the other way around, such that destination names come first and route indicators come secondarily: https://goo.gl/maps/KVBRc1bMbAk2qqCr7 .

I used to think route designations should be more important than place names, because of highways being such inherently noteworthy geographic features.  But now I'm starting to see it the other way.  One could argue that many people would rather know that they're getting on the main road headed toward St. Louis rather than feel some sort of inherent importance that they're getting on Eastbound I-70 from I-35 (or wherever).  Honestly, I've confused east and west more times than I'd like to admit, so I can see perhaps place names being more useful geographic orientation tools.  No matter how many times I confuse east and west, I don't think I'd ever mix up which sides of the continent New York and San Francisco are on.

There's a big part of the reason I feel like bringing up this question.  In the U.S. at least, despite the overwhelming convention of route shields taking precedence, I can't find anything in the MUTCD that says they have to come before destination names or road name text on guide signs.  It's just that all the examples show them that way, and that's the convention.  But please correct me if I'm wrong, because I do miss things from time to time.

[tylert120]

Regarding the Breezewood signage example... per PennDOT spec, green D-boards are to be placed above route shields. So that example is correct. Although there should only be 3 destinations on one D-board, so technically that sign should be split into two separate signs.

[Scott5114]

Route numbers having precedence makes more sense to me for a number of reasons. Knowing you're on the road to St Louis is all well and good, but depending on the area there may well be a number of roads to choose from leading you there. It's important to know which road you're on, especially if your destination is not the control city itself. After all, there a number of roads in Missouri that lead to St Louis, but only one of them is a good route to access Ft. Leonard Wood.

[Ned Weasel]

Route numbers having precedence makes more sense to me for a number of reasons. Knowing you're on the road to St Louis is all well and good, but depending on the area there may well be a number of roads to choose from leading you there. It's important to know which road you're on, especially if your destination is not the control city itself. After all, there a number of roads in Missouri that lead to St Louis, but only one of them is a good route to access Ft. Leonard Wood.

This sign right here: https://goo.gl/maps/242N2FFUbQGQrPKbA , is a good argument for route designations taking precedence, unless you change the destinations on the sign (or change it say "6th Street" instead, which you could do because it's 6th Street in both Lawrence and Topeka).  Main reason, when you see that sign, if you're going to Topeka, you're more likely to keep going on K-10 and use I-70, unless you want to take US 40 to shunpike.

This is one of those things I can see both ways, to be honest.  Or maybe it's something that should be less of a rigid "copy-paste" sign format and more of a case-by-case basis.

[jakeroot]

It's hard to say. I would prefer the rule be 'place legend items where they fit most comfortably'.

For example, this assembly I created in the redesign it! thread. The routes fit more comfortably above the destinations on one sign, but more comfortably below on the other assembly.

EDIT: also this version that switches the shields and destinations on the right sign to reduce width. I prefer to keep shields and destinations aligned across all signs, but it was fun to experiment:

[Henry]

I'd say route numbers are far more prominent, especially since you're on a road that shares two or more highway numbers (e.g. I-90/I-94). Heading west (or north, in reality), when you get to the end of the concurrency, do you continue north to Milwaukee (on I-94) or west to Rockford (on I-90)? Plus, the shields look better above the destinations/road names, although (at least in Chicagoland) it's nice to have the expressway/tollway name beside the shields and below the direction you're currently in, even if it's not technically correct.

[Scott5114]

It's hard to say. I would prefer the rule be 'place legend items where they fit most comfortably'.

The problem with this approach is that it lacks consistency, which helps in driver comprehension. The nature of route shields is that they will tend to draw the eye, because they're big, sometimes colorful, graphics. If the less-flashy control city text is consistently under or to the right of the shields, it can easily be found by someone looking for it. If it's not, it can easily be lost.

For example, with your sign, my eye is drawn first to the shields, then to the large loop arrow. By the time I noticed that I had skipped past the text "Chicago" at the top of the panel, I may well be past the sign.

[jakeroot]

It's hard to say. I would prefer the rule be 'place legend items where they fit most comfortably'.

The problem with this approach is that it lacks consistency, which helps in driver comprehension. The nature of route shields is that they will tend to draw the eye, because they're big, sometimes colorful, graphics. If the less-flashy control city text is consistently under or to the right of the shields, it can easily be found by someone looking for it. If it's not, it can easily be lost.

For example, with your sign, my eye is drawn first to the shields, then to the large loop arrow. By the time I noticed that I had skipped past the text "Chicago" at the top of the panel, I may well be past the sign.

I would generally agree! I think consistency is far better. The original sign had the messages on the same line, but the sign was larger as a result.

But, I'm not sure I agree completely with your analysis. If someone has the time to read the route shields, destinations, and arrows on today's signs, why would they have any difficulty reading them in some other order? There are already rules to reduce the message loading of signage, and they don't seem to mention something to the effect of "drivers are naturally attracted to [colorful] shields, so place them at the top".

Your argument seems to be that drivers will always look at the route shields first, and then everything else second. So, place them at the top, and let drivers read down (or to the left and then read right). While that may be true, and I don't think there's a definitive way to ever be sure, I don't see why drivers wouldn't also notice the destinations, even if placed on top or even to the left. These signs are designed to be read at-speed, and I don't think drivers are going to get so hung-up on shields that they read nothing else. Even if that were true, why would the order even matter? If they're going to get that hung up on the shields, it doesn't matter where the destination legend is.

If there's an issue here, potentially, it's that (A) we allow too many shields on our signs, and/or (B) that our shields are too large. The amount of horizontal space taken up by shields should be smaller than the destinations. This is why I've long advocated for shields between arrows, which would require destinations on top.

[Scott5114]

But, I'm not sure I agree completely with your analysis. If someone has the time to read the route shields, destinations, and arrows on today's signs, why would they have any difficulty reading them in some other order? There are already rules to reduce the message loading of signage, and they don't seem to mention something to the effect of "drivers are naturally attracted to [colorful] shields, so place them at the top".

Your argument seems to be that drivers will always look at the route shields first, and then everything else second. So, place them at the top, and let drivers read down (or to the left and then read right). While that may be true, and I don't think there's a definitive way to ever be sure, I don't see why drivers wouldn't also notice the destinations, even if placed on top or even to the left. These signs are designed to be read at-speed, and I don't think drivers are going to get so hung-up on shields that they read nothing else. Even if that were true, why would the order even matter? If they're going to get that hung up on the shields, it doesn't matter where the destination legend is.

If there's an issue here, potentially, it's that (A) we allow too many shields on our signs, and/or (B) that our shields are too large. The amount of horizontal space taken up by shields should be smaller than the destinations. This is why I've long advocated for shields between arrows, which would require destinations on top.

Well, what you're running into here is the tension between theoretical graphic design and applied graphic design. Your layout is artistically sound and pleasing to the eye. But when you want to impart information to the user–or get them to take a specific action, like in marketing materials–you start having psychology come into play.

The first thing to keep in mind is that most people tend to sightread an item in a Z pattern. If something catches their eye, they may break this pattern to stop and give it a closer look, or they may take in the design in this pattern and then go back and focus on the information they need.


This is why websites tend to have a logo at the upper left, a call to action button (order now, check out, log in, create account, whatever) in the upper right.


A standard layout with shields on top works with this idea.


The problem with rearranging the shields and text is that, since the shields are the most eye-catching element on the panel, by putting content above them, you risk pushing the top bar of that Z downward:


Thinking about this, it has some pretty interesting implications for exit tabs (implying that the California standard or the European model is maybe a better way to go), as well as for other supplemental panels maybe being better placed below the main panel, instead of above.

[jakeroot]

I want to make it totally clear: I absolutely understand the concept of top left to bottom right reading styles. This is very accepted in western culture, and I don't want to mess with that.

(As well, thank you for the excellent diagrams ... good imagery to accompany a thought process seems to be an underrated practice here)/

I'm simply disagreeing that the top of the Z always starts with the shields (why would people not read "Chicago" on my sign?). I'm not familiar with any literature that indicates the shields to be absolutely the first thing everyone sees. I understand why you might say this, with the big red and blue shields, but shields are not always Interstates, and most shields are black-on-white shapes. At the very least, the same color as destination text (on a standard guide sign). Never mind that the standard destination is likely to have at least the same horizontal width as a shield. Not as tall, granted, but it's not a cut and dry "shields are always the first thing everyone sees" situation where the shields out-size the destinations 5-to-1 or whatever.

This aligns with basic ideas that you don't need to have everything below the shields, like exit tabs or supplemental iconography (airports, hospitals, etc), for them to not be missed.

[Scott5114]

I dunno, the first time I saw your drawing, I overlooked "Chicago" at first, and then after a few moments was like "Oh, there it is." But I wouldn't have those few seconds if I were driving. My brain isn't at 100% at the moment, as I'm sick, but I figure if I can have a brain fart and overlook it, other people may too, especially if they're distracted or unfamiliar with the area. It may also be a case of overfamiliarity with the standard way of doing things, too, but if so, that would be something you'd have to fight until everyone got used to the new designs.

I think we can both agree that the next step is to get a grant for a few thousand dollars so we can do a study on this to know for sure.

[GaryV]

I think we can both agree that the next step is to get a grant for a few thousand dollars so we can do a study on this to know for sure.

You're missing an order of magnitude or two.  You need to think bigger!

[kphoger]

Destinations in rural environments.

Route shields, names, or numbers in urban environments.

[Scott5114]

Destinations in rural environments.

Route shields, names, or numbers in urban environments.

I think route shield priority may even preferable in rural areas. Consider, for instance, a regional center that may be accessed by three or four consecutive exits. "The Weatherford exit" would be ambiguous; you need the route numbers (or exit numbers) to specify which Weatherford exit you mean.

[kphoger]

Destinations in rural environments.

Route shields, names, or numbers in urban environments.

I think route shield priority may even preferable in rural areas. Consider, for instance, a regional center that may be accessed by three or four consecutive exits. "The Weatherford exit" would be ambiguous; you need the route numbers (or exit numbers) to specify which Weatherford exit you mean.

I believe the assumption of the OP is that both would still be on the guide sign.  In the case of a town with multiple access routes, either (a) it's a big enough town to be considered an urban environment, or (b) it's a small enough town that it doesn't really matter much.

[jakeroot]

Where do street names fit into this? Would it have the same precedence as a route number or destination?

Right now, route numbers are always on top (de facto placement), but do street names supersede destinations as well? Are they even mixed anywhere?

I think route shield priority may even preferable in rural areas. Consider, for instance, a regional center that may be accessed by three or four consecutive exits. "The Weatherford exit" would be ambiguous; you need the route numbers (or exit numbers) to specify which Weatherford exit you mean.

In this instance, I think it would be normal to not actually sign "Weatherford" though? You would have a sign ahead of time saying "Weatherford - Next 4 Exits" (or whatever), and then a sign at each exit saying what is at that specific exit (route number, street name, nearby hamlets, etc).

[webny99]

I dunno, the first time I saw your drawing, I overlooked "Chicago" at first, and then after a few moments was like "Oh, there it is."

I did the same thing. My eyes seem to have been sub-consciously trained to find/read the shields first.
It wouldn't seem to require significant widening of the sign to just put "Chicago" under the arrow.

[kphoger]

It's hard to say. I would prefer the rule be 'place legend items where they fit most comfortably'.

For example, this assembly I created in the redesign it! thread. The routes fit more comfortably above the destinations on one sign, but more comfortably below on the other assembly.

EDIT: also this version that switches the shields and destinations on the right sign to reduce width. I prefer to keep shields and destinations aligned across all signs, but it was fun to experiment:

It wouldn't seem to require significant widening of the sign to just put "Chicago" under the arrow.

No widening at all, actually.

[webny99]

It wouldn't seem to require significant widening of the sign to just put "Chicago" under the arrow.

No widening at all, actually.

Love it! It may not be not quite as "comfortable" (but I mean come on, it's Chicago, expectations for comfort can't be too high), but the alignment of "Chicago" with the shields is better, and with the arrow in the middle, it reads more like a surface street entrance sign, reinforcing the visual cue that you need to slow down.

[jakeroot]

That looks good to me too!

I only didn't think to do that because my signs have always put destinations first, with the sign on the right having the destinations beneath because it seemed to fit easier.

I guess my preference is similarly the result of personal experience; since so many exits around here (Seattle area) don't have any route number attached to them, and the vast majority of freeways have no concurrencies (and those that do aren't always signed), having more than one shield is very unusual (rare exits with two interstate shields sometimes have no destination at all), so putting them at the same line as the arrows is just natural. The argument of consistency over all else then comes up: most of my signs have shields between the APL arrows, so I naturally make signs with the destination on top pretty much all the time, and keep them at the top unless there is some overwhelming reason why they need to be elsewhere.

[jakeroot]

I'm curious what you guys think of these signs, then, because virtually all of my APLs put the destinations on top (apart from a couple where I forgot and did something else):

[kphoger]

It only worked without widening your sign because 'Chicago' is such a short word.

[jakeroot]

It only worked without widening your sign because 'Chicago' is such a short word.

It seems that the case for shields on the bottom becomes stronger with longer destinations:

[Ned Weasel]

Where do street names fit into this? Would it have the same precedence as a route number or destination?

My assumption is, a change that gives destination names precedence over route numbers would also give street names precedence over route numbers.  But I did leave the question a bit ambiguous and open to interpretation.

For one of the most prominent examples that's close to home for me, I suppose it would be fair to ask, how would one prefer to sign Exit 228B from Northbound I-35 in Kansas?  https://goo.gl/maps/VZEQ1eLhwjqhGDNe8  Give US 56/69/169 precedence (as is done currently)?  Give Shawnee Mission Parkway precedence?  I think most locals just call it Shawnee Mission Parkway, even though I tend to prefer calling it Route 56 (east of I-35).

But I'm starting to wonder if there's perhaps a good reason so many people would rather call it Shawnee Mission Parkway than US 56.  Are people generally more drawn to names than numbers?  Is it even fair to make such a generalization?  I used to obsess over numbers, and then one day recently, I woke up and thought to myself, "You know what?  I'm bored with numbers.  Who really cares that the north-south Interstate between I-79 and I-81 is I-99?  There was no other two-digit number even available!"  And that leads me to question some of my other assumptions, such as there being a major navigational problem with the contradiction occurring when US highways are continuous on paper but not on road signs (see US 6 in Colorado for perhaps the most egregious example, although US 169 in Kansas also has a signage deficiency).

And that leads me to another question:

If there's an issue here, potentially, it's that (A) we allow too many shields on our signs, and/or (B) that our shields are too large. The amount of horizontal space taken up by shields should be smaller than the destinations. This is why I've long advocated for shields between arrows, which would require destinations on top.

If some signs have too many route shields, how would you prefer to handle concurrencies of two or more routes?  Going back to my home state, Kansas is rather inconsistent in its approach.  Sometimes it does things like these: https://goo.gl/maps/2sPrRK41MXB7kSny9 , https://goo.gl/maps/sV2v1Lvb9H1xJDyS8 , and sometimes it does this instead: https://goo.gl/maps/ZcF85qzQJpwW8hjm8 , even though US 50 seems to me like important information, especially since that's the way you'd probably go to parts of Lee's Summit and Sedalia, MO.

Right now, route numbers are always on top (de facto placement), but do street names supersede destinations as well? Are they even mixed anywhere?

The MUTCD advises against mixing street names and destinations, but it doesn't prohibit it, and it even uses it as an example in Figure 2E-12 ("Northern Blvd / Greenvale").  I think it's fairly common to put a street name above a destination, and this is the example that usually comes to my mind first: https://goo.gl/maps/mMyNfk1iTkw4FzL76 .

I think route shield priority may even preferable in rural areas. Consider, for instance, a regional center that may be accessed by three or four consecutive exits. "The Weatherford exit" would be ambiguous; you need the route numbers (or exit numbers) to specify which Weatherford exit you mean.

In this instance, I think it would be normal to not actually sign "Weatherford" though? You would have a sign ahead of time saying "Weatherford - Next 4 Exits" (or whatever), and then a sign at each exit saying what is at that specific exit (route number, street name, nearby hamlets, etc).

And speaking of that last example, literally all four Kansas Turnpike exits for Wichita do indeed say "Wichita" in the guide signs, even though most of us would think a "Wichita NEXT 4 EXITS" sign would suffice.  I have no idea how they intend to sign Exit 53A, however, which will be southbound-only (and ETC-only).

I'm curious what you guys think of these signs, then, because literally all of my APLs put destinations on top:

I like these for the most part, but honestly, something in me gets a bit annoyed when seeing East BL 80 used three times and East I-20/North I-59 used twice.  I know that's done in practice, but it kind of feels like I'm being hit over the head.  I'm honestly not sure how else you'd place the shields between the arrows in a way that doesn't imply only two lanes being available for those routes, however.  Of course, using a short up arrow for the middle lanes with route shields above the short up arrow(s) is one possibility.

(Yes, that was long, but I wanted to consolidate replies into a single message.)

[dcbjms]

I'm curious what you guys think of these signs, then, because virtually all of my APLs put the destinations on top (apart from a couple where I forgot and did something else):

[snip]

Something similar apparently is used in Israeli practice as a middle way between American and general European standards, with some exceptions (for example, the Ayalon Highway in Tel Aviv), though I'd have to check their transport ministry's sign sheet, and I don't speak Hebrew - which in this case is a handicap.