AARoads Forum

You may update your FHWA Gothic vs. Clearview page to reflect that Wyoming now uses Clearview extensively on Interstate signage

I'll add that to my update queue, thanks!

And California does not use Clearview on all new signs, although it does on some.

Well it does display "a few exceptions are found", though I guess I could elaborate and say "only in Orange County on the 5"

Out here in the Sacramento environs, all new CalTrans signs are still using the FHWA font; but the community of Arden (an unincorporated suburb in Sacramento County) is now using Clearview for most (but not all) street signs.

A couple of signalized intersections in Anaheim have the street name displayed in Clearview.

Illinois uses Clearview on more than interstates.  Example from IL 15:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.548803,-90.068364&spn=0,359.956055&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.548867,-90.068464&panoid=WnBex2X85qfe-tvjtCVFrg&cbp=12,119.61506026191437,,0,-28.866714067377437 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.548803,-90.068364&spn=0,359.956055&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.548867,-90.068464&panoid=WnBex2X85qfe-tvjtCVFrg&cbp=12,119.61506026191437,,0,-28.866714067377437)
I'm pretty sure there are a few distance signs on Illinois's state highways that use Clearview now.  The city of O' Fallon uses Clearview on street signs.

For Missouri, the only Clearview signs on a MoDOT maintained road are the destination/attraction signs around the KC Loop (such as the one pictured on the page), barring any recent changes I'm not aware of.  The city of Kirkwood also uses Clearview for street signs now.

Virginia is using Clearview on newly installed or replaced signage on all state-maintained routes (overheads, guide signs, even town limits signs). It's still using FHWA fonts for numbers within shields on those signs, though.

An interesting side note: the City of Richmond (which maintains all non-interstate highways in Richmond) is using Clearview on newer signs, even on tabs at intersections. It also used Clearview on all signage on the Powhite Parkway within Richmond, which is owned, maintained, and administered by the Richmond Metropolitan Authority between VA 150 and I-195.

I'm going down there tomorrow morning so I'll probably have photos.

The standard, except for some signs in Michigan, appears to be clearview on everything but the numbers within the shield.

Oklahoma uses Clearview statewide, on all new BGSes, as far as I know.

The page is updated to reflect many of the comments above about the use of Clearview in each state. Thanks.

---

I was working on a Ramp Meter (https://www.aaroads.com/ramp_meters.html) page of similar design if anyone is ever interested in helping me finish that.

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2009, 03:53:29 AM
Oklahoma uses Clearview statewide, on all new BGSes, as far as I know.

After taking a trip to the Tulsa & Muskogee area this past weekend, I can confirm this. Signs along I-44 from the Turner Turnpike end to I-244 & on I-244 from I-44 (western junction) to downtown Tulsa are all in Clearview. Also, the Muskogee Turnpike has new Clearview signs throughout. Pictures are on my Flickr page.  :)

Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2009, 02:45:51 PM
Like this? (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/other/rampmeter.htm)

Yes, I've looked at your ramp meter page many times over the years. What I wanted to do was make a page that complimented yours with some examples of the different kinds of assemblies used throughout the country. When I lived in California, I had to get used to ramp meters, and thats when my curiosity in them was born. Since then I make it a point to at least photograph one assembly per new city encountered. I saw my first ramp meter in the Atlanta area late last year for instance.

Regarding the ramp meter pages, the only ramp meter ever active in St. Louis (that I know of) was removed a little while back before the eastern section of US 40 closed.  Picture:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.629117,-90.308905&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.629086,-90.309014&panoid=-SSX3jQQVP3r-AkCNIQ-dQ&cbp=12,313.6969258344168,,0,5.000000000000001 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.629117,-90.308905&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.629086,-90.309014&panoid=-SSX3jQQVP3r-AkCNIQ-dQ&cbp=12,313.6969258344168,,0,5.000000000000001)

There were also several put up along US 40 in/around the Chesterfield Valley that were never turned on and later taken down.  Supposedly widening the highway to six lanes made them unnecessary.  Most of the bases still remain:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.662274,-90.569937&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.662145,-90.569792&panoid=o4mU2cmAIKfzwKbk27spRQ&cbp=12,29.214957068303928,,0,8.155283919320878 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.662274,-90.569937&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.662145,-90.569792&panoid=o4mU2cmAIKfzwKbk27spRQ&cbp=12,29.214957068303928,,0,8.155283919320878)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.671372,-90.616286&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.671414,-90.616175&panoid=LYxY_175e3KY4MRqd65jsA&cbp=12,128.25139743622913,,0,28.24392487233049 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.671372,-90.616286&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.671414,-90.616175&panoid=LYxY_175e3KY4MRqd65jsA&cbp=12,128.25139743622913,,0,28.24392487233049)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.67886,-90.658922&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.678923,-90.659017&panoid=ZR6_U6-QFEjSe8WfNnaRcQ&cbp=12,344.12451032033124,,0,18.35736859179172 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.67886,-90.658922&spn=0,359.978027&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.678923,-90.659017&panoid=ZR6_U6-QFEjSe8WfNnaRcQ&cbp=12,344.12451032033124,,0,18.35736859179172)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.671104,-90.602252&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.671063,-90.602577&panoid=cbTE1QpNP4SU4l1w48mkcA&cbp=12,266.25386424497765,,0,16.14866984826711 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.671104,-90.602252&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.671063,-90.602577&panoid=cbTE1QpNP4SU4l1w48mkcA&cbp=12,266.25386424497765,,0,16.14866984826711)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.669931,-90.596116&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.669963,-90.595775&panoid=omAmMVp4fBskck5H7FlYyg&cbp=12,99.98964927595905,,0,13.519266582166368 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.669931,-90.596116&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.669963,-90.595775&panoid=omAmMVp4fBskck5H7FlYyg&cbp=12,99.98964927595905,,0,13.519266582166368)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.652145,-90.556698&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.652139,-90.556457&panoid=LA0GA0uktFI4sgY0TcHMCQ&cbp=12,113.70165169704379,,0,17.095255024063373 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.652145,-90.556698&spn=0,359.989014&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.652139,-90.556457&panoid=LA0GA0uktFI4sgY0TcHMCQ&cbp=12,113.70165169704379,,0,17.095255024063373)

For Wisconsin - there are ramp meters on a few exits on the Madison beltline (US 12/14/18/151)

Still no Clearview in Nevada that I'm aware of.  I don't think there are any plans to change that.

Quote from: aaroads on February 17, 2009, 01:13:29 PM
I was working on a Ramp Meter (https://www.aaroads.com/ramp_meters.html) page of similar design if anyone is ever interested in helping me finish that.

Some info on Las Vegas, NV ramp meters:

I-15 - Russell Rd to Sahara Ave: meters activated early 2007.
I-515 - I-15 to Eastern (and maybe further south): meters activated in 2007-08
US 95 - Lake Mead & Cheyenne (SB ramps): activated 2008
US 95 - I-15 to Cheyenne or Craig: activation pending (weren't active as of Christmas this year)

Additional ramp meters are coming soon to I-15 north of I-515/US 95, to be installed as part of the I-15 North Corridor design-build project currently underway.

QuoteI was working on a Ramp Meter (https://www.aaroads.com/ramp_meters.html) page of similar design if anyone is ever interested in helping me finish that.

In Minnesota ramp meters are also used on US 169, MN 36, and US 10 (when it has its own freeway alignment, not just on the three interstate duplexes). There are probably more; I'll get back to you.

Quote from: okroads on February 17, 2009, 03:09:17 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2009, 03:53:29 AM
Oklahoma uses Clearview statewide, on all new BGSes, as far as I know.

After taking a trip to the Tulsa & Muskogee area this past weekend, I can confirm this. Signs along I-44 from the Turner Turnpike end to I-244 & on I-244 from I-44 (western junction) to downtown Tulsa are all in Clearview. Also, the Muskogee Turnpike has new Clearview signs throughout. Pictures are on my Flickr page.  :)

I-44 still has a few old signs between the two I-244 junctions, including an error circle 64 sign and a circle 66 sign.  I'm sure they'll disappear when I-44 is relocated.

The Muskogee has been switched over to Clearview for at least six months now.

As for ramp meters, I've never heard of any in either Oklahoma or Arkansas.

Michigan is replacing all their signs from FHWA to Clearview. I-75 and US-131 have been fully converted. I-96 is partway complete as is I-94. But other freeways such as I-275 and M-6 still have the old format the whole length.

I saw some Clearview signs on US 22 around Allentown on May 13th mixed among the FHWA signs.

My educated guess is that Pennsylvania still usually only replaces signs when they're worn out or destroyed.  As I still saw the original 40+ year old button copy text signs for US 11 on exit 241 WB on I-80, it will probably be a long time before PA is even mostly on Clearview.

what if they redo an interchange or stretch of highway? do they put back the old signs that are still applicable?

Quote from: mightyace on May 28, 2009, 01:44:20 PMMy educated guess is that Pennsylvania still usually only replaces signs when they're worn out or destroyed.

That and when a road is rehabbed.

For a state that went gangbusters on Clearview back in 2001, Pennsylvania's usage of it plateaued quickly.  Even back in 2004 during a tour of the sign shop for the Harrisburg Meet, someone in the group asked about Clearview being used, and the employee giving the tour just chuckled.  There was a sign being made while we were there which is on my sign shop (http://harrisburg.pahighways.com/penndotsignshop.html) page, but it was being made with FHWA Gothic.

Two questions on Clearview and the PTC.

Is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission using Clearview?

Does the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission get their signs from PennDOT, make their own or contract them out to someone else?

Quote from: mightyace on May 28, 2009, 02:11:16 PM
Two questions on Clearview and the PTC.

Is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission using Clearview?

Yes

Quote from: mightyace on May 28, 2009, 02:11:16 PMDoes the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission get their signs from PennDOT, make their own or contract them out to someone else?

As far as I know, the PennDOT Sign Shop still makes them.

Quote from: mightyace on May 28, 2009, 02:11:16 PMTwo questions on Clearview and the PTC.

Is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission using Clearview?

Yes.  PTC practice, which is followed in only a few PennDOT districts at the moment, is to use Clearview for all text legend except route marker digits.

There is considerable variation among PennDOT districts in the way Clearview is implemented.  It is quite common for Clearview to be used only for the main legend (i.e., destinations which typically appear in mixed-case), with Series E Modified continuing to be used for minor legend like exit tabs and distance legends.  Meanwhile, significant parts of the I-376 redesignation are being done by patching existing Series E Modified signs with Series E Modified, rather than Clearview.  The construction drawings for the ongoing I-376 rehabilitation/Squirrel Hill Tunnel height detector retrofit (ECMS 75905) give a good overview of this.

QuoteDoes the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission get their signs from PennDOT, make their own or contract them out to someone else?

The PTC contracts out signing.  However, a PTC signing contract is an agreement to carry out signing work which is later specified by a work order with accompanying drawings, rather than being detailed in the contract documents themselves.

Here is a breakdown of two recent PTC signing contracts (work authorization drawings obtained through a RTKL request):

*  99-011-RC1U-C:  Truck rollover signs plus guide signing for Exit 31 (Lansdale), Exit 44 (Quakertown), Exit 95 (Pocono), Exit 105 (Wilkes-Barre), Exit 115 (Wyoming Valley) (all but the first of these exits being on the Northeast Extension)

*  99-011-RC1T-C:  Truck rollover signs plus guide signing for Exit 110 (Somerset) on the main Turnpike

There has, just in the past month, been one other signing contract, but I have not filed a RTKL request for it yet.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 28, 2009, 06:37:20 PM
*  99-011-RC1U-C:  Truck rollover signs plus guide signing for Exit 31 (Lansdale), Exit 44 (Quakertown), Exit 95 (Pocono), Exit 105 (Wilkes-Barre), Exit 115 (Wyoming Valley) (all but the first of these exits being on the Northeast Extension)

All of those exits are on the Northeast Extension. Exit 31 is the first exit on the extension north of I-276 and has the distinction of being the only exit on the turnpike to keep its number when converting over to mileage-based exit numbers. [The sequential numbering system had 1-30 for the main pike and 31-39 for the extension.]

I drove through exits 31, 44, and 95 on the NE extension just over two weeks ago.

Yup--my mistake--the plans included a sign reading "[I-276] 9 MI" and I read "276" as "279."

Looks like I-77 between CAK and Akron is getting new signs with Clearview.

There are some BGS signs on I-65 in North Alabama that now use Clearview.

There are also street signs in Wetumpka, AL that use Clearview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Wetumpka,+Alabama&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,79.101563&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FSaP8AEdr7bc-g&split=0&ll=32.537701,-86.205618&spn=0.003342,0.004828&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.537742,-86.205718&panoid=30ZAn5D-HoM8UgUE-sSLiw&cbp=12,262.23,,0,-8.5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Wetumpka,+Alabama&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,79.101563&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FSaP8AEdr7bc-g&split=0&ll=32.537701,-86.205618&spn=0.003342,0.004828&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=32.537742,-86.205718&panoid=30ZAn5D-HoM8UgUE-sSLiw&cbp=12,262.23,,0,-8.5)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Wetumpka,+Alabama&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,79.101563&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FSaP8AEdr7bc-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=32.519862,-86.210481&panoid=CLGkr2pG1d1eid_oZqT-lA&cbp=12,40.68,,0,5&ll=32.520039,-86.209427&spn=0.006685,0.009656&z=17 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Wetumpka,+Alabama&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.956929,79.101563&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FSaP8AEdr7bc-g&split=0&t=h&layer=c&cbll=32.519862,-86.210481&panoid=CLGkr2pG1d1eid_oZqT-lA&cbp=12,40.68,,0,5&ll=32.520039,-86.209427&spn=0.006685,0.009656&z=17)

Not sure if they are ALDOT installed or City of Wetumpka installed.

QuoteYes.  PTC practice, which is followed in only a few PennDOT districts at the moment, is to use Clearview for all text legend except route marker digits.

Either they're contractor errors, or a few PennDOT districts are starting to use Clearview for standalone route shields now too.  Don't recall where offhand, but I have a few photo examples back at the house.

It's possible the contractors have been fabricating the signs as drawn.  There have been a few PennDOT signing plans with Clearview route marker digits, though this error is still pretty uncommon.

Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2009, 06:40:27 AMEither they're contractor errors, or a few PennDOT districts are starting to use Clearview for standalone route shields now too.  Don't recall where offhand, but I have a few photo examples back at the house.

I have pictures from ones around Columbia and saw some back in March in Adams County.

Quote from: J N Winkler on June 04, 2009, 07:20:25 AMIt's possible the contractors have been fabricating the signs as drawn.

The type of signs Froggie is talking about have no PennDOT logo at the bottom that I recall.  So they could have come from anywhere since Harrisburg usually brands their creations.  There are numerous examples of this contractor signage near me like white-on-blue and red-on-white information signage and irregularly-shapped US and PA shields.

Quote from: PAHighways on June 04, 2009, 01:25:10 PMThe type of signs Froggie is talking about have no PennDOT logo at the bottom that I recall.  So they could have come from anywhere since Harrisburg usually brands their creations.  There are numerous examples of this contractor signage near me like white-on-blue and red-on-white information signage and irregularly-shapped US and PA shields.

I hadn't read Froggie's post closely and assumed he was talking about guide-sign shields.  This is an example of what I had in mind (District 1 in this case):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10050%2Fpenndot-sign-with-clearview-shield-digits-ecms-64321.jpg&hash=618c1c7051ce5d937fca9b9681cf75b7e83f517d)

A note about the New Jersey entry. NJDOT is NOT using Clearview from what I've seen. The blurry example provided looks like a traffic light street sign installed by Somerset County DPW. They have been using a Clearview like font (it might actually be Transport Medium) for a few years in that application. NJDOT (along with the NJ Turnpike Authority) has stuck with the current FHWA fonts on their overhead signs.

On I-75/71 in Covington, Kentucky, there is new exit signage for exit 191 that uses the new Clearview. I'll try to snap a picture of it later this weekend...

One clarification if i may....

Jeff at the ConnDOT Sign Shop did tell me that while Clearview is being implemented on future signage, that the signs on the Merritt Parkway are NOT done in Clearview, but a similar (different) font developed specifically for the Merritt...

WIDTH = 800!!

Quote from: JMoses24 on July 02, 2009, 07:54:06 PM
On I-75/71 in Covington, Kentucky, there is new exit signage for exit 191 that uses the new Clearview. I'll try to snap a picture of it later this weekend...

Courtesy of Tim Brown:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi32.tinypic.com%2Fw0q3yw.jpg&hash=f6ac74046a2a1c24dd4cdd4f9d650b921a3b3453)

Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2009, 06:02:17 PM
WIDTH = 800!!

Quote from: JMoses24 on July 02, 2009, 07:54:06 PM
On I-75/71 in Covington, Kentucky, there is new exit signage for exit 191 that uses the new Clearview. I'll try to snap a picture of it later this weekend...

Courtesy of Tim Brown:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi32.tinypic.com%2Fw0q3yw.jpg&hash=f6ac74046a2a1c24dd4cdd4f9d650b921a3b3453)

Is that sign in Ohio? Mile marker in the middle shows that it is just north of the Ohio River.

That's I-75/71 just south of the merge in Cincinnati. I believe KYTC installed it.

I'm thinking KYTC is going through as they replace signs, and implementing the Clearview font. There are Clearview font signs at two additional locations:

*The Exit 189 gore point sign (northbound only) is Clearview and was probably done at the same time as the new signs for exit 191
*Destination signs for exit 178 (KY 536/Mt Zion Road) are Clearview as well (specifically, the signs for Gateway Community/Technical College's Boone County campus)

Looks like it's in Ohio, but I'm pretty sure those are KY-supplied signs.  Ohio rarely, if ever, uses ALLCAPS in anything like the "5th STREET" on that sign.

A minor comment about that page: in MD Clearview is also used on some non-interstate highways as new signs are put up (an example is on U.S. 40 Alternate in LaVale, where all the signs that were replaced during construction were replaced with Clearview signs).

Just took a trip to the Canadian Maritimes. Nova Scotia seems to be implementing Clearview on all new highway signs, but I don't remember seeing any in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island.

Also, there is at least one Clearview sign in Vermont, on I-91, stating "Brattleboro Next 2 Exits."

Quote from: AARoads on February 13, 2009, 12:30:01 PM
Well it does display "a few exceptions are found", though I guess I could elaborate and say "only in Orange County on the 5"

I just read your entry regarding California on the Gothic vs Clearview Page.  As far as I know California is not currently using Clearview on any guide signs although it has been approved for future use.  IMO, the entry should read "No, though a few exceptions are found: I-5 in Orange County, city street signs"?

QuoteOklahoma uses Clearview statewide, on all new BGSes, as far as I know.

For the most part, yes. But I saw numerous examples this past weekend where the BGS's are Clearview, but the Exit gore signs are still FHWA on both the Muskogee & Cimarron Turnpikes.

I've received a couple of emails with updates recently on new areas that now Clearview now. Would anyone like to compile a new list for me to use to bring the font page (https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.html) up to date? Or, given that Clearview is more widely used now, should I bother to keep the page going?

Alabama is now using Clearview on all signs statewide.

There are some new Clearview BGSs here in the Shoals as well as a ton in Birmingham.

I've seen on Steve Alpert's site & on Street View that Clearview has been installed on new signs in Hawaii (I mean Oahu).

Quote from: US-43|72 on May 11, 2010, 05:09:12 AM
Alabama is now using Clearview on all signs statewide.

There are some new Clearview BGSs here in the Shoals as well as a ton in Birmingham.

You mean like this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0420.jpg&hash=381edcb5a8eac5fc0547af29fa6288075da893fa)

It is starting to appear in Mobile and Baldwin too. There is much more of it in Iowa and Illinois now, and Ohio is using it more and more as well. Throw in Arkansas, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and its pretty much everywhere.

The question to be asked now, where is it not used? In Florida, its only used by the OOCEA.

Louisiana is using it now, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia too. North Carolina? I don't think yet, nor South Carolina.

The Dakotas? Montana?

Really its only a matter of time before it pervades everywhere. I likely will decommission the page on Clearview vs. Highway Gothic, as its so prevalent now.

Indiana does not use Clearview yet as far as I have seen.

Nor does Minnesota.

Quote from: Brandon on May 12, 2010, 08:05:30 AM
Indiana does not use Clearview yet as far as I have seen.

I have actually seen what appears to be Clearview on a few street signs in Downtown Indianapolis, and I think Plainfield uses it in a few locations. However, INDOT does not use Clearview and appears as if they won't in the foreseeable future, it's still very foreign to us.

The only Clearview that I've seen in Tennessee are the street signs on traffic lights in Franklin, TN.

I haven't seen it at all in Nebraska. It's still very rare in Iowa, Kansas and Missouri too, even though it apparently does exist in a few places.

No Clearview in Oregon yet that I've seen, though ODOT has been doing a lot of experiments with FHWA Series C on recent signs.  The City of Gresham has been using it across the board on all signal-mounted street signs for a while now, too.

-Alex (Tarkus)

I just saw my first instance of it in Iowa yesterday. I was only in Iowa briefly(IA 2 and I-29 S. into Missouri), but the last exit on I-29 South(Exit 1-IA 333 Hamburg) is in Clearview. Exit 10, the exit for IA 2 is not Clearview as of yet, but there is a sign for an Iowa Welcome Center at the exit that is.

I saw quite a bit in Iowa during my travels there last week. Not only is it on interstate guide signs, but on mileage signs on surface routes.

Updated (https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.html) with personal observations and responses from above. Any other changes or corrections, please post them here.

The city of Franklin, TN is using Clearview for street signs.

Shall I send you some and/or post some?

Here are the current uses of Clearview in Quebec that I know of:

In most cases, only the legends are in Clearview, not the exit numbers or distances. In some other cases, however, Clearview is used for those too. Clearview is, probably like everywere else, never used on shields.

A-10 in Magog
A-13 in Dorval
A-20 in Montréal between St-Pierre interchange (QC-138) and Turcot interchange (A-15/A-720) (the reversed section)
A-20 in and around Saint-Hyacinthe, as well as some other sparse places between Montréal and Québec
A-25
A few assemblies on A-40 in Montréal
A-40 in Québec City

Street name signs in Laval.

Sparse use of Clearview on road construction signs.

FYI: the font on the example image for Louisiana isn't Clearview.

Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on October 26, 2010, 08:13:07 PM
FYI: the font on the example image for Louisiana isn't Clearview.

I have photos of freeway guide signs along Interstate 20 done in Clearview, but think I will discontinue the example images section. We all know now it looks the same regardless of state.  :pan:

New York state - at least Western NY - is NOT converting to Clearview.  There have been BGS replacement projects on I-86, I-390 and US 15 in the Southern Tier, and also I-390, NY 390 and I-490, all in the Rochester area - in all cases in 2009 and 2010, and NONE were in Clearview.

NYSDOT only converts when forced.  So that's why they held out with sequential exit numbers until now.  Until FHWA Gothic is retired, that's all you'll see.

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on October 26, 2010, 09:57:05 AM
Here are the current uses of Clearview in Quebec that I know of:

In most cases, only the legends are in Clearview, not the exit numbers or distances. In some other cases, however, Clearview is used for those too. Clearview is, probably like everywere else, never used on shields.

A-10 in Magog
A-13 in Dorval
A-20 in Montréal between St-Pierre interchange (QC-138) and Turcot interchange (A-15/A-720) (the reversed section)
A-20 in and around Saint-Hyacinthe, as well as some other sparse places between Montréal and Québec
A-25
A few assemblies on A-40 in Montréal
A-40 in Québec City

Street name signs in Laval.

Sparse use of Clearview on road construction signs.

How much longer before Quebec becomes entirely clearviewized? I hope there are still plenty of FHWA font signs the next time I head back there, which may not be until December of 2011.

I have no idea, but I don't think they're actively replacing all the signs... only the ones that need to be replaced because of wear and age, etc. There still are blue signs on A-10 from back when it was a toll route...

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on October 27, 2010, 08:56:58 PM
There still are blue signs on A-10 from back when it was a toll route...

and some of them are definitely showing the wear and tear.  There's a few blue signs that still have the Autoroute des Cantones Est shield!

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on October 27, 2010, 08:56:58 PM
I have no idea, but I don't think they're actively replacing all the signs... only the ones that need to be replaced because of wear and age, etc. There still are blue signs on A-10 from back when it was a toll route...

Phew... I really don't mind the more modern FHWA font guide signs with the wide shield design. I'd also like to go see the remaining blue signs in person some day.

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-10 if you haven't seen the blue signs.

Hey Alex, to update your Clearview page - you have NJ as "Yes, in Bridgewater."  The correct answer would be "Yes, Somerset County and Union County, but only on county roads." 

Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 26, 2010, 10:41:37 PM
New York state - at least Western NY - is NOT converting to Clearview.  There have been BGS replacement projects on I-86, I-390 and US 15 in the Southern Tier, and also I-390, NY 390 and I-490, all in the Rochester area - in all cases in 2009 and 2010, and NONE were in Clearview.

My understanding is that it's NYSDOT policy to continue using the FHWA font until Clearview is the only required font by the MUTCD.  However, Clearview is not absent from New York's roadways, as the Thruway Authority, NYCDOT and the Westchester County DPW has been known to post signs using the Clearview font.

Quote from: Dougtone on January 07, 2011, 07:48:21 PM

My understanding is that it's NYSDOT policy to continue using the FHWA font until Clearview is the only required font by the MUTCD.  However, Clearview is not absent from New York's roadways, as the Thruway Authority, NYCDOT and the Westchester County DPW has been known to post signs using the Clearview font.

I'm not positive, but I think I've seen some of the "Erie Canal Heritage Corridor" (or whatever the exact verbiage of the sign is) in Clearview on non-Thruway routes.

Correct- but those may have been erected by NYSTA, as the canal is maintained by NYSTA's Canal Recreationway Commission.

Just received an email that Clearview signs have been added to the Indiana East-West Toll Road. More specifically photos of Exits 10 and 14A now have signs in the font. Is just the toll road using it in the state?

Quote from: Alex on March 28, 2011, 01:07:33 PMJust received an email that Clearview signs have been added to the Indiana East-West Toll Road. More specifically photos of Exits 10 and 14A now have signs in the font. Is just the toll road using it in the state?

Yes.  Indiana DOT signing plans are Series E Modified all the way down the line.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 15, 2009, 08:50:12 PM
A note about the New Jersey entry. NJDOT is NOT using Clearview from what I've seen. The blurry example provided looks like a traffic light street sign installed by Somerset County DPW. They have been using a Clearview like font (it might actually be Transport Medium) for a few years in that application. NJDOT (along with the NJ Turnpike Authority) has stuck with the current FHWA fonts on their overhead signs.

I wanted to scroll back to see if any mention was made of New Jersey. I did spot (and photograph) some Clearview on eastbound I-676 in Camden.

Tweaked the page (https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.html) a bit. Eliminated the examples section, added Yes for Wisconsin based upon observations of it along the Beltine at Madison and for the aforementioned Indiana Toll Road usage. Added yellow to states where Clearview is used by some agencies, but not the main DOT. Tweaked a couple of other states' based upon comments made above.

Utah should be yellow - Legacy Parkway is the only road in the state that has Clearview signage.

Quote from: CL on June 04, 2011, 10:59:09 PM
Utah should be yellow - Legacy Parkway is the only road in the state that has Clearview signage.

was that done by a separate authority?

even the new UT-7 is Highway Gothic (at least, as of August, 2009)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 04, 2011, 11:01:45 PM
was that done by a separate authority?

even the new UT-7 is Highway Gothic (at least, as of August, 2009)

Nope, built and maintained by UDOT. I think they just wanted to use Legacy as a proving ground and nothing else (Clearview wasn't the only thing done differently on Legacy).

And yeah, all new signage Utah's installing is still Highway Gothic. The Southern Parkway/SR-7 extension (which opened November 2010) was signed in Gothic as well; Utah's stubbornly defying the Clearview trend. But now that Nevada's joined in...

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 04, 2011, 11:01:45 PM

Quote from: CL on June 04, 2011, 10:59:09 PMUtah should be yellow - Legacy Parkway is the only road in the state that has Clearview signage.

was that done by a separate authority?

even the new UT-7 is Highway Gothic (at least, as of August, 2009)

Nope.  The Legacy Parkway is totally UDOT's baby:  designed, bid, and built by UDOT.

UDOT has a late stage in its PS&E development process called "Plans in Hand," which I think corresponds to 90% or 95% design for state DOTs which express completion of design plans in percentages.  I have a copy of the Plans-In-Hand plans for the Legacy Parkway, which are (mostly) pattern-accurate and show the Legacy Parkway as U-67 on trailblazers and on advance guide and exit direction signs on interchanging freeways.  Series E Modified is used for all white-on-green legend.

Some months after UDOT made the Plans-In-Hand plans available to contractors, final plans were released for the Legacy Parkway, with a radically revised signing scheme.  These plans were not pattern-accurate except for route shields and for advance guide and exit direction signs on interchanging freeways.  It was not until pictures of Clearview signs on the Legacy Parkway were posted on this board that I realized lack of the Clearview fonts must have been the reason for the lack of pattern-accuracy in this version of the plans.  Also, all signing for U-67 disappeared, in favor of the present blades-of-grass marker.

For each state DOT for which I am able to obtain construction plans, I maintain a "witching directory" file which contains pattern-accurate sign design sheets extracted from those plans.  My UDOT witching directory includes signing sheets from the PIH stage but only the interchanging-road sheets from the final plans.

So, the long and short of it is that the Legacy Parkway became the testbed for Clearview in Utah virtually at the eleventh hour.

Edit:  Looking at the Clearview chart, I think North Dakota should be green.  NDDOT has gone over to Clearview body and soul.  With very few exceptions, the signing plans I have downloaded from NDDOT (and I have been following them since 2009) have been in Clearview.  NDDOT advertised a big sign rehabilitation on I-29 last year with about 40 pages of sign design sheets, all in Clearview.  I have my doubts about Ohio, which I would color yellow because the signing plans I have seen suggest that Ohio DOT is operating a "district option" policy with regard to Clearview.  Districts 6 and 8 still show Series E Modified on plans while District 12 has been showing largely Clearview.  But I can't be 100% sure because Ohio DOT has a very sketchy history of producing pattern-accurate signing plans.

Quote from: J N Winkler on June 04, 2011, 11:17:49 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 04, 2011, 11:01:45 PM

Quote from: CL on June 04, 2011, 10:59:09 PMUtah should be yellow - Legacy Parkway is the only road in the state that has Clearview signage.

was that done by a separate authority?

even the new UT-7 is Highway Gothic (at least, as of August, 2009)

Nope.  The Legacy Parkway is totally UDOT's baby:  designed, bid, and built by UDOT.

UDOT has a late stage in its PS&E development process called "Plans in Hand," which I think corresponds to 90% or 95% design for state DOTs which express completion of design plans in percentages.  I have a copy of the Plans-In-Hand plans for the Legacy Parkway, which are (mostly) pattern-accurate and show the Legacy Parkway as U-67 on trailblazers and on advance guide and exit direction signs on interchanging freeways.  Series E Modified is used for all white-on-green legend.

Some months after UDOT made the Plans-In-Hand plans available to contractors, final plans were released for the Legacy Parkway, with a radically revised signing scheme.  These plans were not pattern-accurate except for route shields and for advance guide and exit direction signs on interchanging freeways.  It was not until pictures of Clearview signs on the Legacy Parkway were posted on this board that I realized lack of the Clearview fonts must have been the reason for the lack of pattern-accuracy in this version of the plans.  Also, all signing for U-67 disappeared, in favor of the present blades-of-grass marker.

For each state DOT for which I am able to obtain construction plans, I maintain a "witching directory" file which contains pattern-accurate sign design sheets extracted from those plans.  My UDOT witching directory includes signing sheets from the PIH stage but only the interchanging-road sheets from the final plans.

So, the long and short of it is that the Legacy Parkway became the testbed for Clearview in Utah virtually at the eleventh hour.

Wonderful insight! I had no idea that the plans once called for Highway Gothic to be used. I'd love to see those old Gothic plans for Legacy if you could email them to me. I wonder what inspired UDOT to use Legacy as a proving ground... in any event, if Utah were to completely switch over to Clearview I wouldn't lose sleep - the Legacy signs don't look bad at all.

Some New Jersey CV for your viewing pleasure...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5185%2F5684694364_858c87dfb1.jpg&hash=5dff100923c2d213e92d257cf670d8f1fba14241)

North Dakota is now using clearview? Ugh. And lets hope NJDOT doesn't continue to use it.

I saw Clearview in ND as far back as Feb '10.  Didn't see any in Apr '07.

ND is a pretty "ahead of the curve" state - I don't even know of any '57 spec interstate shields.  there are a few on mainline I-29 which use a variant of the '61 spec (smaller crown) and even those are looking pretty rough and may very well have been replaced by now.

Do the ones in ND look okay at least, or are they sloppy looking? Anyone also have photos? From what I've seen, I noticed Hawaii does its clearview pretty badly.

Quote from: J N Winkler on June 04, 2011, 11:17:49 PM

So, the long and short of it is that the Legacy Parkway became the testbed for Clearview in Utah virtually at the eleventh hour.

Edit:  Looking at the Clearview chart, I think North Dakota should be green.  NDDOT has gone over to Clearview body and soul.  With very few exceptions, the signing plans I have downloaded from NDDOT (and I have been following them since 2009) have been in Clearview.  NDDOT advertised a big sign rehabilitation on I-29 last year with about 40 pages of sign design sheets, all in Clearview.  I have my doubts about Ohio, which I would color yellow because the signing plans I have seen suggest that Ohio DOT is operating a "district option" policy with regard to Clearview.  Districts 6 and 8 still show Series E Modified on plans while District 12 has been showing largely Clearview.  But I can't be 100% sure because Ohio DOT has a very sketchy history of producing pattern-accurate signing plans.

Thanks for the updates, I have amended the page accordingly for North Dakota, Ohio and Utah.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on June 05, 2011, 12:15:52 AM
Do the ones in ND look okay at least, or are they sloppy looking? Anyone also have photos? From what I've seen, I noticed Hawaii does its clearview pretty badly.

I didn't take any photos, but I remember the signs being generally well-proportioned and looking similar to Texas issues.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2011, 12:39:45 AM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on June 05, 2011, 12:15:52 AM
Do the ones in ND look okay at least, or are they sloppy looking? Anyone also have photos? From what I've seen, I noticed Hawaii does its clearview pretty badly.

I didn't take any photos, but I remember the signs being generally well-proportioned and looking similar to Texas issues.

Well then that's a good thing.

Alex--you're welcome.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2011, 12:39:45 AM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on June 05, 2011, 12:15:52 AMDo the ones in ND look okay at least, or are they sloppy looking? Anyone also have photos? From what I've seen, I noticed Hawaii does its clearview pretty badly.

I didn't take any photos, but I remember the signs being generally well-proportioned and looking similar to Texas issues.

Actually, I think the quality is pretty uneven--more so than Texas.  In general NDDOT follows somewhat offbeat sign design rules:  thick borders and excess space between the border and the legend block.  Aside from oddities like larger shields for Interstates than for US highways on interchange sequence signs and the now-abandoned practice of using 48" two-digit shields for three-digit Interstates, TxDOT's basic approach to sign composition is vanilla.  I dug up the plans for the I-29 sign replacement, which has the NDDOT project number SIM-6-029(093)136 and covers I-29 from about Exit 138 to about Exit 168, and quite a lot of the signs had excess green space around the legend while others had the legend almost crashing into the borders.  On the plan sheets at least it does not look very good, frankly.

You don't have to take my word for any of this, BTW.  NDDOT has E-plans on their website (no login required).

http://www.dot.nd.gov/dotnet2/eplans/default.aspx

SIM-6-029(093)136 was advertised in the letting of November 19, 2010.

Quote from: J N Winkler on June 05, 2011, 02:00:26 PM

Actually, I think the quality is pretty uneven--more so than Texas.  In general NDDOT follows somewhat offbeat sign design rules:  thick borders and excess space between the border and the legend block.  Aside from oddities like larger shields for Interstates than for US highways on interchange sequence signs and the now-abandoned practice of using 48" two-digit shields for three-digit Interstates, TxDOT's basic approach to sign composition is vanilla.  I dug up the plans for the I-29 sign replacement, which has the NDDOT project number SIM-6-029(093)136 and covers I-29 from about Exit 138 to about Exit 168, and quite a lot of the signs had excess green space around the legend while others had the legend almost crashing into the borders.  On the plan sheets at least it does not look very good, frankly.

You don't have to take my word for any of this, BTW.  NDDOT has E-plans on their website (no login required).

http://www.dot.nd.gov/dotnet2/eplans/default.aspx

SIM-6-029(093)136 was advertised in the letting of November 19, 2010.

the ones I saw were on US-10 as it ends at I-94 heading west out of Fargo.  I think that was it - that was a trip on which I attempted to follow US-10 across the whole state, so that led to a bunch of I-94 segments and I think those were all still in Highway Gothic except for those few gantries on the west end of Fargo.

Yes, that must have been it.  NDDOT tends to do its freeway signing in Interstate 4R contracts and, more rarely, in pure Interstate sign replacement contracts.  I know of no pure signing work that has been done on I-94 yet, but I-94 has had a bunch of interchange rehabs and its turn for pure signing may come up soon.

Quote from: J N Winkler on June 05, 2011, 04:35:55 PM
Yes, that must have been it.  NDDOT tends to do its freeway signing in Interstate 4R contracts and, more rarely, in pure Interstate sign replacement contracts.  I know of no pure signing work that has been done on I-94 yet, but I-94 has had a bunch of interchange rehabs and its turn for pure signing may come up soon.

furthermore, the small handful of signs must've all been done as part of the same project - therefore, my impression that ND's Clearview looks consistent and generally Texas-like.  I had been extrapolating from maybe 3-4 signs.

While TDOT doesn't use Clearview, it should be noted that I've noticed that the city of Franklin, TN uses it.  Please update the entry for Tennessee accordingly.

Here is a sample as proof:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3428%2F5806139276_f243c31d73.jpg&hash=9c04bdf916ec33af58cb12574f2bfff04b926f74) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5806139276/)
20100219 Royal Oaks Blvd @ TN 96-4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5806139276/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2159%2F5806139356_e0341199dc.jpg&hash=69c48e22ba6d263f13dedeb96aa192687ba8358e) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5806139356/)
20100219 Royal Oaks Blvd @ TN 96-4C2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/5806139356/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr

In Indiana, street signs in the Plainfield area (the commercial development near I-70 and IN 267) are in Clearview.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Indy_Days_3-4%2FImages%2F107.jpg&hash=dcc76a8cc6d6db8f95349d9848624e8ef0802ac9)

Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2011, 10:57:37 AM
In Indiana, street signs in the Plainfield area (the commercial development near I-70 and IN 267) are in Clearview.

Quote from: mightyace on June 06, 2011, 05:45:00 PM
While TDOT doesn't use Clearview, it should be noted that I've noticed that the city of Franklin, TN uses it.  Please update the entry for Tennessee accordingly.

Noted and noted on the page (https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.html), thanks!

Just to note, the City of Eau Claire, WI uses Clearview for there street signs/ blades.
EDIT

QuoteSome cities such as Eau Claire, Wis., have already been gradually replacing signs as they wear out. Brian Amundson, the city's public works director, says replacing signs is "a good, worthwhile program. It really does make a difference." - USAToday

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-21-road-signs-all-caps-lowercase_N.htm

It appears that Clearview can now be found in Georgia, specifically on street signs along US 78 in the Stone Mountain/Snellville area (unfortunately didn't have a camera with me when I saw them today, so no pics at the moment).  I'm guessing these were done by Gwinnett County, not GDOT.

Quote from: exit322 on August 12, 2009, 09:27:21 PM
Looks like it's in Ohio, but I'm pretty sure those are KY-supplied signs.  Ohio rarely, if ever, uses ALLCAPS in anything like the "5th STREET" on that sign.

That is Ohio. The blue mileage signs are a dead giveaway, as I know of few other states that use blue mileage markers.

Clearview passed the experimental stage in QC and is now required for positive contrast BGSes. Probably the first state in North America to do so, as it is not bound by a federal authority like FHWA.

I've seen a grand total of ONE Clearview sign so far in Connecticut. It's near Exit 22 on I-84 West in Waterbury, in front of the Brass Mill Center Mall. I doubt we'll see more, since there was a major sign project done along parts of I-95 in Fairfield County, mostly in Darien. None of those signs look to have Clearview font at all.

Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on December 07, 2011, 07:30:40 PM
Clearview passed the experimental stage in QC and is now required for positive contrast BGSes. Probably the first state in North America to do so, as it is not bound by a federal authority like FHWA.

Clearview is unlikely to pass through the experimental stage in the US. I've heard that the FHWA isn't thrilled with it.

Update for Wisconsin:
The question was brought up in our meeting with WisDOT: What is the status of Clearview in Wisconsin?

Back in 2008, as part of a sign maintenance project, 44 guide signs were replaced along the Madison beltline between US 51 (Stoughton Rd) and Park Street (US 14).  As part of this replacement, WisDOT decided to test out the Clearview font on these signs (in addition to the super-high intensity sheeting).

Mid-replacement:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0352_for-web.jpg&hash=0606f924038a4ff0393c5734cccb8779f04e6627)

According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.

Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.

Quote from: Steve on March 04, 2012, 07:13:50 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.

Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.

I might be wrong, but that might be one of the signs with the 5-W(R) reduced width font signs due to overhead support restrictions.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong...wouldn't be the first mistake their contractor has made (future topic).

Here's some others from the corridor:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0343.jpg&hash=fd1023dbdfe9aaee1eaa5f4b741fa9f09be0d23c)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0344.jpg&hash=d0adada1c7e7dfae168c786d25a4e854959f8e13)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0362.jpg&hash=9c87a93260f37627cc1f9312e603de84ac3e7224)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0350.jpg&hash=7354698217d6bc770b12b052dd496cf19c0736c9)

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 03:12:15 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 04, 2012, 07:13:50 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AM
According to WisDOT, their testing (data unknown) did not reveal a significant improvement to warrant the change.  So for the foreseeable future, Wisconsin highways will be graced by the FHWA Standard fonts.  The signs along the test corridor will remain for the rest of the signs' useful service life (guaranteed by the installer for ~15 years).  Super-high intensity sheeting will, however, be the norm for freeway guide signs.  Becuase of this change and the data they collected, there will not be any new sign lighting.  Existing sign lighting (mostly in the Milwaukee metro area) will be turned off as signs are replaced/upgraded.

Good good good. Let's not point out they forgot to increase the spacing between letters 50% in their test run.

I might be wrong, but that might be one of the signs with the 5-W(R) reduced width font signs due to overhead support restrictions.  But I wouldn't be surprised if it was wrong...wouldn't be the first mistake their contractor has made (future topic).

Here's some others from the corridor:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0343.jpg&hash=fd1023dbdfe9aaee1eaa5f4b741fa9f09be0d23c)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0344.jpg&hash=d0adada1c7e7dfae168c786d25a4e854959f8e13)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0362.jpg&hash=9c87a93260f37627cc1f9312e603de84ac3e7224)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F188_82%2FIMG_0350.jpg&hash=7354698217d6bc770b12b052dd496cf19c0736c9)

They're clearly all like that without the increased spacing. Improper Clearview fail. Then again, if you gave as many bonuses to FHWA font as you did to Clearview (use E instead of E-M, increase spacing, etc.) then I think FHWA would win easily.

I am sure I have seen WisDOT construction plans showing Clearview with no reduction in intercharacter spacing--"Fish Hatchery Rd" comes to mind.  I incline to think that Clearview has been given a fair shot in Wisconsin.

Speaking of Clearview experiments, upthread Roadfro mentioned some Clearview signage on a length of US 395 in Reno which had recently been reconstructed.  This, I have subsequently determined, was done under Nevada DOT Contract 3401, whose engineer seals have dates mostly in July 2009.  To the best of my knowledge, all Nevada DOT contracts done before and since have called for the FHWA alphabet series, and recent Nevada DOT work has called for conventional-road guide signs with mixed-case lettering in the FHWA series, as is now called for in the 2009 MUTCD.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 05, 2012, 04:19:16 AM
I am sure I have seen WisDOT construction plans showing Clearview with no reduction in intercharacter spacing--"Fish Hatchery Rd" comes to mind.  I incline to think that Clearview has been given a fair shot in Wisconsin.

Read what I'm saying (twice) carefully. I never said reduction. I said it's being done without the 50% increase that it's supposed to have.

Quote from: ctrabs74 on December 07, 2011, 05:12:14 PM
That is Ohio. The blue mileage signs are a dead giveaway, as I know of few other states that use blue mileage markers.

Indiana uses them extensively.  Kentucky also uses them, as seen on Alps I-71 page.  471 also has them.

Regarding Clearview, it's showing up in Akron on street sign blades.  Also, at the now-complete OH 8-Ohio Turnpike interchange, there is some interesting overlap; ODOT signage on the newly completed stretch of 8 is Clearview; the Turnpike doesn't use Clearview but still installs lighting on overheads.  Signage in the newly completed areas that belong to the Turnpike commission is lighted but in Clearview.  Evidently ODOT did the specs for the signs but the Turnpike asked that the signs on their sections be lighted as is their standard.

I-277 was resigned last year, sadly replacing great button copy, but in FHWA, not Clearview. 

Quote from: Steve on March 05, 2012, 08:02:10 PMRead what I'm saying (twice) carefully. I never said reduction. I said it's being done without the 50% increase that it's supposed to have.

No amount of re-reading will cut through a lack of clarity.  Clearview 5-W comes with standardized letter tiling, as does Clearview 5-W-R.  The design specification (if memory serves) is that legend in Clearview 5-W-R will, on average, be as wide as it is in Series E Modified, while the same legend in Clearview 5-W will be approximately 11% wider.  I have never heard of the distinction between the two being characterized as a 50% reduction or a 50% increase.  Was it your intention to say that 5-W should have been used instead of 5-W-R?  If so, then why not just say that?

The sign photos posted so far for Wisconsin appear to show vanilla 5-W-R.  The Fish Hatchery Rd. plans set I have seen shows vanilla 5-W.

I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.

What is your source for this 50% increase?

Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.

Clearview has 13 families:

1B-6B (slightly thinner letters, I think it's for negative contrast)
1W-6W (slightly thicker, I think it's for positive contrast)

1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

Quote from: Quillz on March 06, 2012, 07:30:34 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 06, 2012, 05:50:16 PM
I have no clue what 5-W or 5-W-R are. All I know is that the spacing in Clearview letters has to be 50% above what is specified in order to match what the FHWA has tested and approved.

Clearview has 13 families:

1B-6B (slightly thinner letters, I think it's for negative contrast)
1W-6W (slightly thicker, I think it's for positive contrast)

1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

It's all officially spelled out here:

• http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_clearview_font.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/ia_clearview_font.pdf)  (Official Intrim Approval, "equivalent" fonts, etc.)
• http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/clearviewspacingia5.pdf (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/clearviewspacingia5.pdf)  (Spacing Guides)
• http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm)   (Design & Use, FAQ)

It is worth noting that unlike the material at the first two links, which has been on the MUTCD website since Clearview received interim approval in September 2004, the FAQ is new.  It stresses many points of Clearview usage which figure prominently in road enthusiast criticism of Clearview.

*  Don't use Clearview in route shields, even in positive contrast such as on Interstate shields (FHWA's rationale:  shields of all types are not designable signs, so Clearview cannot be used for them)

*  Never use Clearview for standard (i.e., non-designable) signs

*  Avoid using Clearview digits in exit tabs and distance expressions

*  Never assume that Clearview uppercase letter height and lowercase loop height are in the same 4:3 ratio that applies to Series E Modified (the true ratio is more like 25:21)--use uppercase letter height only as the sizing control

*  Follow the same rules for interline and margin spacing with Clearview that you would follow with Series E Modified (i.e., uppercase letter height horizontally, and 75% of uppercase letter height vertically)

*  Follow the same rules for building fraction rectangles that you would use with Series E Modified--do not use inline fractions, and do not use software fraction-building routines unless they have purposely been designed to be "Clearview-aware"

*  Do not assume that even "W" Clearview alphabets are uniformly more legible than the corresponding FHWA alphabet series (for example, Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R have a demonstrated legibility advantage over Series E Modified, but Clearview 3-W--positioned as an equivalent to Series D--is actually less legible than Series D)

*  Never use Clearview in negative contrast

*  Never use mixed-case Clearview as a drop-in substitute for all-uppercase legend in the FHWA alphabet series

Thanks JN, I forgot to add that note about the FAQ release...

Also worth noting, is a reply I got to a letter spacing question I posed to the folks that designed the font (regarding if the spacing was automatically correct within the font when placed into design software or if it had to be manually manipulated):

QuoteThe letter spacing is included in the font and is more accurate than the FHWA published letter space data for the Clearview fonts.

Also, do not follow the old methodology that specifies one dimension for the cap height and another for the x height. Scale the Clearview fonts to what ever cap height is required and DO NOT individual modify the lowercase height. One of the reasons Clearview is so successful is the proportion of x-height to cap height. Do not change that relationship.

There is some kerning tables built into the font that will optimize letter fit, if the design program supports kerning. Problematic pairs such as Ta Te To Va Vo etc are adjusted with the kern data. InDesign supports kerning. MS Word supports it, but it is turned off by default (at least it used to be), and can be turned on in the paragraph format. Most commercial sign making applications such as GuidSIGN and SignCAD do not support kerning.

DaBigE, thanks for posting this information about how various design packages handle the kerning built into the Clearview typefaces.  SignCAD is supposed to be Clearview-friendly but I have seen quite a few SignCAD-generated sign design sheets with fairly serious letter spacing problems in Clearview blocks.

It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...

Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:29:11 PM
It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...

Mandated?  Last I saw, only standard, specific letter spacing is required.  Kerning and letter spacing are not the same thing (one is a function of the other).  And in the case of GuidSIGN, lack of a kerning function is not necessarily the sign design software's fault.  GuidSIGN operates within a CAD program (as an MDL for the designers/software geeks out there).  All of its functionality is limited by the host CAD software package (generally MicroStation or AutoCAD).  Most, if not all CAD programs are not meant to be used for perfect text layout, therefore you won't find a kerning function as you would in Adobe InDesign or MS Word.  Having fully automatic letter spacing is not necessarily the best thing either.  Sign design (as with any design) should not be completely without human interaction and review.

With regards to the way WisDOT lays out their signs, while slower and arguably antiquated, it still (IMO) one of the best ways of laying out a sign.  Each letter exists as a separate [Microstation] cell with alignment guides (some of which are the little 'dots' you see on their sign plate sheets).  Each letter is placed individually on the plan, as an individual shape, similar to how they're ultimately constructed.  Unlike typing a note in the CAD software, each character's exact placement can be individually controlled.  You can't do that with a note/string of text with the traditional text placement method in most CAD packages.

The mainstream CAD packages are slowly adding more word processing capabilities, but the key word is slowly.  I think it will be quite a while before we see kerning added to CAD.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 07, 2012, 09:10:30 PM

Quote from: Steve on March 07, 2012, 07:29:11 PM
It would be wonderful if programs designed to make signs would incorporate mandated kerning...

Mandated?  Last I saw, only standard, specific letter spacing is required.  Kerning and letter spacing are not the same thing (one is a function of the other).  And in the case of GuidSIGN, lack of a kerning function is not necessarily the sign design software's fault.  GuidSIGN operates within a CAD program (as an MDL for the designers/software geeks out there).  All of its functionality is limited by the host CAD software package (generally MicroStation or AutoCAD).  Most, if not all CAD programs are not meant to be used for perfect text layout, therefore you won't find a kerning function as you would in Adobe InDesign or MS Word.  Having fully automatic letter spacing is not necessarily the best thing either.  Sign design (as with any design) should not be completely without human interaction and review.

With regards to the way WisDOT lays out their signs, while slower and arguably antiquated, it still (IMO) one of the best ways of laying out a sign.  Each letter exists as a separate [Microstation] cell with alignment guides (some of which are the little 'dots' you see on their sign plate sheets).  Each letter is placed individually on the plan, as an individual shape, similar to how they're ultimately constructed.  Unlike typing a note in the CAD software, each character's exact placement can be individually controlled.  You can't do that with a note/string of text with the traditional text placement method in most CAD packages.

The mainstream CAD packages are slowly adding more word processing capabilities, but the key word is slowly.  I think it will be quite a while before we see kerning added to CAD.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If WisDOT can do it manually, why can't the program incorporate the same thing? The MUTCD has tables for each letter with the required spacing on either side. All I'm asking is to follow the tables, that should be really easy. Spacing between words, with hyphens, etc. could also easily match MUTCD requirements. This isn't advanced technology. Whatever spacings they have now, change them/fix them.

Quote from: Quillz on March 06, 2012, 07:30:34 PM1B/W is more or less equivalent to Series B, and so on. But then there is also 5W-R, I imagine it means "revised," and is more or less the equivalent of E(M).

"Revised"? I had always assumed it stood for "reduced", for some reason.

(Not that it really matters either way)

Yes, "R" in "5-W-R" does stand for "reduced"--this alphabet has the same glyphs as 5-W but at a reduced intercharacter spacing so that it can be used as a drop-in replacement for Series E Modified (legend blocks the same width, etc.) on replacement sign panels which have to match the originals in size.

Part of the problem with intercharacter spacing these days is that it is no longer supposed to be based entirely on specified distances between one character and the next, as it was with the classic FHWA series.  The FHWA 2000 series use the same letter spacing system as modern computer fonts (and, for that matter, the Transport alphabets used in Britain)--each character is considered to be on its own imaginary "tile" with a predetermined space cushion on either side, and legend is meant to be composed by butting tiles against each other.  So when a font is advertised as having "kerning pairs" or "kerning built-in," what this really means is that the font file contains a list of letter pairs together with a spacing adjustment for each pair which is a correction to the spacing that would be naïvely produced by butting the two letters' tiles against each other.  The kerning pairs included in a font are typically those letter combinations which look very unpleasing with the default spacing.

Tiling (new method) and spacing tables (old method) are essentially two different routes to the same goal.  The use of letter tiles and kerning pairs, in combination, allows a precise match with old-style spacing tables.  But that is not actually the goal of tiling the FHWA alphabet series.  Rather, it is to have the FHWA series as fonts with letter tiles but no kerning pairs, because many software programs don't implement kerning pairs.  Thus, the dimensions of the letter tiles have been chosen so as to minimize the kerning pairs that would be required for a precise match with the old spacing tables.

DaBigE's correspondence with the Clearview designers suggests that they have similarly designed the fonts to be tilable but are using kerning pairs extensively (certainly far more extensively than the FHWA 2000 fonts), and many software packages just don't implement these pairs.  This is thus another way in which Clearview is much less fail-safe than the FHWA alphabet series.  (Other ways:  letters with ascenders which are taller than capital letters; lowercase loop height which does not match the interline spacing specified for both Clearview and FHWA legend.)  The practical result is that it takes more steps and more awareness of a font's properties for a sign designer to produce a correctly dimensioned sign in Clearview, and those in turn become additional opportunities for a designer to make mistakes, particularly when working in haste without adequate training by his or her state DOT.

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2012, 07:09:36 AM
It is worth noting that unlike the material at the first two links, which has been on the MUTCD website since Clearview received interim approval in September 2004, the FAQ is new.  It stresses many points of Clearview usage which figure prominently in road enthusiast criticism of Clearview.

*  Don't use Clearview in route shields, even in positive contrast such as on Interstate shields (FHWA's rationale:  shields of all types are not designable signs, so Clearview cannot be used for them)

*  Never use Clearview for standard (i.e., non-designable) signs

*  Avoid using Clearview digits in exit tabs and distance expressions

*  Never assume that Clearview uppercase letter height and lowercase loop height are in the same 4:3 ratio that applies to Series E Modified (the true ratio is more like 25:21)--use uppercase letter height only as the sizing control

*  Follow the same rules for interline and margin spacing with Clearview that you would follow with Series E Modified (i.e., uppercase letter height horizontally, and 75% of uppercase letter height vertically)

*  Follow the same rules for building fraction rectangles that you would use with Series E Modified--do not use inline fractions, and do not use software fraction-building routines unless they have purposely been designed to be "Clearview-aware"

*  Do not assume that even "W" Clearview alphabets are uniformly more legible than the corresponding FHWA alphabet series (for example, Clearview 5-W and 5-W-R have a demonstrated legibility advantage over Series E Modified, but Clearview 3-W--positioned as an equivalent to Series D--is actually less legible than Series D)

*  Never use Clearview in negative contrast

*  Never use mixed-case Clearview as a drop-in substitute for all-uppercase legend in the FHWA alphabet series

All of which makes me ask the inevitable question--why bother using Clearview if it is improper in all those cases?
(It's become pervasive around here, including in various ways that violate the above--negative contrast in places like EXIT ONLY and LEFT plaques/fields, exit numbers and distances, etc. etc.)

I agree very much with the statement above that if FHWA lettering were given the bonuses that Clearview gets, FHWA would win.  Wasn't E-Modified modified so as to fit button reflectors?  If the button reflectors aren't used anymore, why not use Series E?

Some of the ODOT Clearview is okay but there are some pretty bonkers examples.  Why wasn't this sign wider, for example?  Steve's site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/i-77/s2.html) has pics of the old signage, with a properly wide sign for this exit.  They used a wider font and a narrower sign?  "Firestone Blvd N" is incredibly squished.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.uakron.edu%2Fgenchem%2F77signs%2FCIMG0018.JPG&hash=bd3f0e0ca51ac88786d00f729147691f2043807c)

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 05, 2012, 04:19:16 AM
Speaking of Clearview experiments, upthread Roadfro mentioned some Clearview signage on a length of US 395 in Reno which had recently been reconstructed.  This, I have subsequently determined, was done under Nevada DOT Contract 3401, whose engineer seals have dates mostly in July 2009.  To the best of my knowledge, all Nevada DOT contracts done before and since have called for the FHWA alphabet series, and recent Nevada DOT work has called for conventional-road guide signs with mixed-case lettering in the FHWA series, as is now called for in the 2009 MUTCD.

Well, I appear to have mentioned this in another thread, but it's true. About a 4-mile stretch of US 395 (I-580) northbound in Reno was widened. All signs in this stretch, and one southbound sign structure just past I-80, were replaced due to new/moved sign structures. All new signs are Clearview, except I-80 shields (and possibly other numbers on the signs--not sure). However, there is one sign for the airport which appears to mix FHWA and Clearview legend quite randomly...  The new overhead signs also appear to be using better sign sheeting, as none of these new signs are illuminated.

Any other new conventional guide signs I've seen from NDOT now have mixed lettering but retain FHWA fonts. There is a new sign on I-80 West near Virginia St in Reno for the UNR attractions which has a compressed font that I haven't gotten a good enough look at to tell whether it's Clearview or FHWA. Most signs on I-80 in Reno are scheduled to be replaced under the current design-build project which should wrap later this year--unfortunately, this means the last remaining dark-green porcelain signs on I-80 in Reno will be disappearing--hopefully not to be replaced by Clearview.

Not sure if this is a fluke install or not, but the auxiliary guide sign for Five Flags Speedway and the Naval Aviation Museum of Exit 7 along Interstate 10 westbound was replaced with a Clearview-fonted panel. This is the first non-OOCEA install with Clearview in Florida I have observed.

One of my Flickr contacts has a photo of this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33445721@N04/7082421831/in/contacts/lightbox/) sign in Shrewsbury, MA. So I guess MassDOT is using Clearview now?  :-(

Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 15, 2012, 10:26:25 PM
One of my Flickr contacts has a photo of this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33445721@N04/7082421831/in/contacts/lightbox/) sign in Shrewsbury, MA. So I guess MassDOT is using Clearview now?  :-(

Ay caramba.  Thought Mass might not hop on the Clearview bandwagon.  Maybe it was contractor error/discretion.  Oddballs have shown up in Mass before, like the Connecticut-style button copy at 291 on the Mass Pike (though that was Mass Pike signage, not MassHighway), one-off button copy like on MA 2 at one interchange, etc, so maybe this too is an oddball and not part of a trend.

Quote from: PurdueBill on April 16, 2012, 02:16:22 PM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 15, 2012, 10:26:25 PM
One of my Flickr contacts has a photo of this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33445721@N04/7082421831/in/contacts/lightbox/) sign in Shrewsbury, MA. So I guess MassDOT is using Clearview now?  :-(

Most of the new signs I've seen erected in MA are NOT Clearview.  Ay caramba.  Thought Mass might not hop on the Clearview bandwagon.  Maybe it was contractor error/discretion.  Oddballs have shown up in Mass before, like the Connecticut-style button copy at 291 on the Mass Pike (though that was Mass Pike signage, not MassHighway), one-off button copy like on MA 2 at one interchange, etc, so maybe this too is an oddball and not part of a trend.

It may be indeed a "One-Off"... kind of like one sign structure along I-84 Westbound in Waterbury, CT containing Exit 22 & 21 signs in Clearview font.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 07, 2011, 08:46:36 PM
I've seen a grand total of ONE Clearview sign so far in Connecticut. It's near Exit 22 on I-84 West in Waterbury, in front of the Brass Mill Center Mall.

Make that TWO signs on one sign structure; see above-description.

Most of the newer signs I've seen erected along I-84 (I was just there last week) don't have any Clearview at all.

May 27, 2013 UPDATE: The above-mentioned Clearview BGS' along westbound 84 have since been replaced.  New BGS' featuring FHWA Gothic with larger Exit tabs now adorn the gantry.

Quote from: DaBigE on March 04, 2012, 04:22:32 AMBack in 2008, as part of a sign maintenance project, 44 guide signs were replaced along the Madison beltline between US 51 (Stoughton Rd) and Park Street (US 14).  As part of this replacement, WisDOT decided to test out the Clearview font on these signs (in addition to the super-high intensity sheeting).

However, its looks as though WisDOT could still be evaluating Clearview, when they redid the Park St and Rimrock Rd interchanges in 2010 they replaced all the '08 signage (for those intersections).  But the signage they replaced it with is still Clearview:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/247343_10150204103467948_181045197947_6996194_98239_n.jpg

Just to note, the City of Eau Claire, WI uses Clearview for there street signs/ blades.

QuoteSome cities such as Eau Claire, Wis., have already been gradually replacing signs as they wear out. Brian Amundson, the city's public works director, says replacing signs is "a good, worthwhile program. It really does make a difference." - USAToday

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-21-road-signs-all-caps-lowercase_N.htm

Quote from: on_wisconsin on April 24, 2012, 08:17:59 PM
However, its looks as though WisDOT could still be evaluating Clearview, when they redid the Park St and Rimrock Rd interchanges in 2010 they replaced all the '08 signage (for those intersections).  But the signage they replaced it with is still Clearview:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/247343_10150204103467948_181045197947_6996194_98239_n.jpg

No, the evaluation is over.  That is what I was told directly by the State Signing Engineer.  They recently released some new standard sign plates (within the past couple months), and they all were designed with the FHWA Gothic series.  As for the Park St & Rimrock Rd signs, I would find it strange if they replaced signs only 2 years old.  Ground-mounted regulatory/warning signs maybe, but BGS aren't exactly cheap.  Even if they did replace them, they probably recycled the sign plate designs from the aforementioned replacement project.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on April 24, 2012, 08:17:59 PM
Just to note, the City of Eau Claire, WI uses Clearview for there street signs/ blades.

Quote
Some cities such as Eau Claire, Wis., have already been gradually replacing signs as they wear out. Brian Amundson, the city's public works director, says replacing signs is "a good, worthwhile program. It really does make a difference." - USAToday

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-21-road-signs-all-caps-lowercase_N.htm

Your article makes no mention of Eau Claire using Clearview or the Clearview font whatsoever.  The article is purely about retroreflectivity changing from all caps to title case.

Quote from: DaBigE on April 24, 2012, 11:54:48 PM
No, the evaluation is over.  That is what I was told directly by the State Signing Engineer.  They recently released some new standard sign plates (within the past couple months), and they all were designed with the FHWA Gothic series.  As for the Park St & Rimrock Rd signs, I would find it strange if they replaced signs only 2 years old.  Ground-mounted regulatory/warning signs maybe, but BGS aren't exactly cheap.  Even if they did replace them, they probably recycled the sign plate designs from the aforementioned replacement project.

Yeah I was wrong the old Park St signs replaced in 2010 where FHWA font: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3646/3449706787_61a45c7b22_b.jpg and the Rimrock Rd was ground mounted Clearview: http://www.citydictionary.com/Uploaded/Images/Beltline-The-20080726082023.jpg
(I guess I didn't get really into to roads/ sign fonts before '10) 

Quote from: DaBigE on April 24, 2012, 11:54:48 PM
Your article makes no mention of Eau Claire using Clearview or the Clearview font whatsoever.  The article is purely about retroreflectivity changing from all caps to title case.

The city does use Clearview for there street blades from what I saw the last time I was up there visiting family (November).

Quote from: on_wisconsin on April 25, 2012, 08:28:22 PM
Yeah I was wrong the old Park St signs replaced in 2010 where FHWA font: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3646/3449706787_61a45c7b22_b.jpg and the Rimrock Rd was ground mounted Clearview: http://www.citydictionary.com/Uploaded/Images/Beltline-The-20080726082023.jpg
(I guess I didn't get really into to roads/ sign fonts before '10)

Rimrock (taken just after the sign replacement project...not some of my better photography :no:):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F182_6%2FIMG_0341.jpg&hash=79c795c54ec5d4eebaa9770037c6449013512b61)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhotimg23.fotki.com%2Fa%2F50_50%2F182_6%2FIMG_0342.jpg&hash=1469537c380acc8b4bbaaa0c82c8c873a214654e)

Seen some clearview signs on I-476 2 weeks ago and  PA turnpike do use the smaller clearview sizes when putting them on over passes or an Interchange ex Quakertown, Allentown SP US-222

Quote from: Ian on April 15, 2012, 10:26:25 PM
One of my Flickr contacts has a photo of this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33445721@N04/7082421831/in/contacts/lightbox/) sign in Shrewsbury, MA. So I guess MassDOT is using Clearview now?  :-(

I can assure everyone reading that this was a contractor error, and is not a test or a new MassDOT standard.  Besides the use of Clearview font, the destinations are fully spelled out ('borough').  Had they used standard MassDOT abbreviations ('boro'), the panel could have been mounted on two posts instead of three.

that double-border MA-9 shield seems to be out of spec as well.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 05:45:31 PM
that double-border MA-9 shield seems to be out of spec as well.

Use of inset borders for MA route shields mounted on BGS panels has been MassHighway/MassDOT standard since the mid-1990s.  For emphasis, this requirement has been provided in the MassDOT MUTCD amendments as well:

Section 2E.27 Route Signs and Trailblazer Assemblies
Massachusetts M1-5 route shields shall always include a border and inset, whether mounted independently or on guide signs.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms.aspx

My apologies for reviving a very old thread. But I feel like the 'Highway Gothic or Clearview' list on the main website is now quite out-dated.

Ontario no longer uses Clearview, even though the list says it does. Member AsphaltPlanet photographed a Clearview sign replaced with series EM this spring. First image 2010, second 2015. The only use in Ontario is in Toronto, Sault Ste Marie. The province itself dumped it now.

Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on April 19, 2015, 02:09:29 PM
A series of sign replacements have been undertaken during the winter this year in the GTA.  Here are some before and after photos of the work:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FQEW_images%2FQEW_dv_99-5_Oct10_TB.jpg&hash=bf0cd23dc46279346c23315587efb651ad1bf0f7)
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/QEW_images/QEW_dv_99-5_Oct10_TB_24x16.jpg

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FON%2FQEW_images%2FQEW_dv_99-5_TB_Apr15.jpg&hash=ea8a55b63b75a69f845d44e5d0ab014c19ae3e2a)
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/ON/QEW_images/QEW_dv_99-5_TB_Apr15_24x16.jpg

I believe Iowa is in the same boat as Ontario. Apparently they don't use Clearview either. Don't have a picture.

And, member Pink Jazz stated that Arizona may also have dumped Clearview. No confirmation though.

Finally, BC, SK, MB, NF should be listed as using Clearview. Confirmation can be found easily on Streetview.

The page if no one has the link: https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.php

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PMI believe Iowa is in the same boat as Ontario. Apparently they don't use Clearview either. Don't have a picture.

If I understand correctly, Ontario only experimented with Clearview, and never embarked on full-throttle adoption of it.  Iowa differs from this to the extent that Clearview was the actual standard for a number of years.  (I continue to monitor Iowa DOT lettings and the EDMS and although there have been one or two signing contracts with Clearview, probably because the plans had been sitting on the shelf for a while, nearly all new signing is in the FHWA alphabet series.)

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PMAnd, member Pink Jazz stated that Arizona may also have dumped Clearview. No confirmation though.

Pink Jazz has cited field installations, which could very well be contractor errors (cf. Roadman's post upthread).  I am seeing very little evidence of Clearview being dumped in recent Arizona DOT signing plans.  These include corrected as-builts (redline date of February 27, 2015) for the I-10 Craycroft-to-I-19 job (TRACS H855601C) as well as the SR 210 job (TRACS H855401C), all of which use Clearview.

The one plans set I have seen that tends to suggest Clearview is being dumped is a SR 264 Burnside-Fish Wash job (TRACS H824601C) for which early-stage draft plans have been prepared as of last month.  I'm hesitant to draw inferences from it since the signing plans are pretty rough, with distance expressions in mixed case (e.g. "4 Miles" instead of "4 MILES").

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 21, 2015, 08:55:17 PM

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PMI believe Iowa is in the same boat as Ontario. Apparently they don't use Clearview either. Don't have a picture.

If I understand correctly, Ontario only experimented with Clearview, and never embarked on full-throttle adoption of it.  Iowa differs from this to the extent that Clearview was the actual standard for a number of years.  (I continue to monitor Iowa DOT lettings and the EDMS and although there have been one or two signing contracts with Clearview, probably because the plans had been sitting on the shelf for a while, nearly all new signing is in the FHWA alphabet series.)

Yes, that is correct. Ontario experimented with it, but never adopted it. I should have elaborated more on that above.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 21, 2015, 08:55:17 PM

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PMAnd, member Pink Jazz stated that Arizona may also have dumped Clearview. No confirmation though.

Pink Jazz has cited field installations, which could very well be contractor errors (cf. Roadman's post upthread).  I am seeing very little evidence of Clearview being dumped in recent Arizona DOT signing plans.  These include corrected as-builts (redline date of February 27, 2015) for the I-10 Craycroft-to-I-19 job (TRACS H855601C) as well as the SR 210 job (TRACS H855401C), all of which use Clearview.

The one plans set I have seen that tends to suggest Clearview is being dumped is a SR 264 Burnside-Fish Wash job (TRACS H824601C) for which early-stage draft plans have been prepared as of last month.  I'm hesitant to draw inferences from it since the signing plans are pretty rough, with distance expressions in mixed case (e.g. "4 Miles" instead of "4 MILES").

Ok. I also thought it was a little early to say whether or not Arizona changed back or not. Thanks for including this, I did not know.

It also notes that Somerset and Union counties in New Jersey use it. I have seen a very heavy reduction in Clearview in Somerset, to the point where I'm thinking they dropped it because they are the new larger style street signs but they use the FHWA typeface instead.

I've created this map, based on the both the data off the page, and updates since.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FClearview%2520Map%2520US_zpsirbcnwky.jpg&hash=8c65e8734a72659987f93d041328ccb9000b9873)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FClearview%2520Map_zpsluyioydq.png&hash=871855fb8f4669cd96322ee0865162019650073e)

EDIT: Fixed arrow.

Uh... why is your DC pointing at New York City? It should be pointing at the very small gap between Maryland and Virginia if it's supposed to represent Washington, DC.

Quote from: Zeffy on August 24, 2015, 06:49:19 PM
Uh... why is your DC pointing at New York City? It should be pointing at the very small gap between Maryland and Virginia if it's supposed to represent Washington, DC.

I didn't necessarily point DC at New York for its location. I just wanted to point out that DC uses FHWA, hence the (BGS) green colour. I should have elaborated further. The arrow is pretty unnecessary.

EDIT: I removed the arrow. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll try to get the page updated to reflect all of the recent posts. Thanks for that!
Love the status maps too, mind if we add those to the page?

Quote from: Alex on August 24, 2015, 11:40:18 PM
I'll try to get the page updated to reflect all of the recent posts. Thanks for that!
Love the status maps too, mind if we add those to the page?

The original maps were just off the internet and have stuff about copyright and distribution. So, I remade them using Wikimedia Commons free use licence.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FUS%2520Clearview%2520Map%2520New_zpsepehegxb.jpg&hash=a7a5b518cb589532bf10718f2dfd0c1df20af657)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb551%2Fslik_sh00ter%2FCanada%2520Clearview%2520Map_zpsrk5ivkkr.jpg&hash=e4cf70c10d768da1d854671e5bab075ab4b09090)

I would love for these to be on the page. Thanks!  :cheers:

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 25, 2015, 12:16:31 AM

The original maps were just off the internet and have stuff about copyright and distribution. So, I remade them using Wikimedia Commons free use licence.

<snip>
I would love for these to be on the page. Thanks!  :cheers:

Thanks! I have updated the page (https://www.aaroads.com/fonts.php) to reflect the recent observations cited above and added your maps. I also amended the page to reference the 2014 letter of the FHWA rescinding the Interim Approval for Clearview.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 21, 2015, 08:55:17 PM

Quote from: SignGeek101 on August 21, 2015, 05:09:06 PMI believe Iowa is in the same boat as Ontario. Apparently they don't use Clearview either. Don't have a picture.

If I understand correctly, Ontario only experimented with Clearview, and never embarked on full-throttle adoption of it.  Iowa differs from this to the extent that Clearview was the actual standard for a number of years.  (I continue to monitor Iowa DOT lettings and the EDMS and although there have been one or two signing contracts with Clearview, probably because the plans had been sitting on the shelf for a while, nearly all new signing is in the FHWA alphabet series.)

I can verify that IowaDOT did indeed use Clearview in the field.  A number of signs along I-80 actually have Clearview, including the numerals.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_5670_zpsqbzrgpqx.jpg&hash=2a6bdf897a73dfc4b131040429633cf59f3cd1fd) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_5670_zpsqbzrgpqx.jpg.html)

Just the exit tabs on this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_5662_zpsfseummpl.jpg&hash=85cd800ef9bbd15c9b9046902c9be4d1bd48ad1f) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_5662_zpsfseummpl.jpg.html)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_5664_zpsdbbsnzpc.jpg&hash=41296cad684f092d72bab6d0a8b6948b761fee1b) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_5664_zpsdbbsnzpc.jpg.html)

Interesting tidbit -- I don't see that Kentucky ever got approval for Clearview on the FHWA page. (http://"http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm") There are a number of approvals for Kentucky listed, but Clearview is not one of them. Hmmm.

Since when does South Dakota use Clearview? I've only ever seen it municipally used (Spearfish, Rapid City, Sioux Falls).

Quote from: SD Mapman on September 13, 2015, 10:23:35 AMSince when does South Dakota use Clearview? I've only ever seen it municipally used (Spearfish, Rapid City, Sioux Falls).

I have not seen any evidence of Clearview use by SDDOT, and I monitor their construction plans sets.

Besides SD, here is my list of possible corrections:

VT:  I see Clearview used only for large panel signs for freeways.  Small panel signs continue to use the FHWA alphabet series.

ID:  I see only the FHWA series used on ITD infrastructure.

In regard to an impending phaseout of Clearview, I am starting to see signs it may be getting underway in Illinois.  IDOT advertised a sign replacement contract, 46337, in the last couple of months that has a number of panels (though not all of them) with the FHWA alphabet series instead of Clearview.  Also, in the case of South Carolina, SCDOT's last signing contract was for tourist signing in the Myrtle Beach vicinity and it includes some green-background panels with Series E Modified instead of Clearview.