Logo signs are controversial to some people, since some find them to be a distraction. However, with the proliferation of smartphones, many people are temped to look for nearby services on Google or Yelp while driving at highway speeds. This is an even greater distraction than logo signs.
However, there is a possible counterargument in favor of logo signs. Without logo signs, the amount of drivers who resort to look for services on Google or Yelp
could greatly increase, which would lead to more accidents. This is especially important in urban areas, where some states still don't allow logo signs in urban areas despite the MUTCD adding provisions in 2000. As far as I know, here is a list of states that permit logo signs in urban areas:
- Arizona (since 2013)
- Colorado
- Florida
- Georgia
- Iowa
- Louisiana (thanks Urban Prairie Schooner)
- Massachusetts (thanks roadman)
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- North Carolina (I think so)
- Texas
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wisconsin
Anyone know of any others? I know New Mexico
technically allows logo signs in urban areas, but no engineering study has ever been performed in Albuquerque, which is why the Interstates within Albuquerque do not have logo signs installed except the ones on the outer reaches of the city (I-40 and Coors Blvd in the eastbound direction being the most inner-urban).
So, what does anyone here think? Could logo signs be a way of reducing the number of drivers who use Google or Yelp at highway speeds?
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
I like logo signs, and wish they were on all major freeways, both rural and urban (where there is room). Usually, if I'm driving somewhere unfamiliar and I want to stop for food, I have a general idea of what I want to eat, and probably won't exit unless they have what I want (unless I'll be waiting a while if I keep going). Usually I get a general idea of where things are along my route before I leave, but that's not always possible.
Same here. I don't particularly care what brand of gas I buy, but if I'm traveling and I want a bite to eat, I generally either want to grab something at Sheetz if I'm in their territory, or get something from a drive-thru at a preferred fast-food place. A combination of logo signs and billboards (gasp, the thoughts of a business advertising itself, how terrible) works well for me. If I don't like what's at the exit I'm approaching, I'll go on to the next exit.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 13, 2014, 11:56:56 PM
Logo signs are controversial to some people, since some find them to be a distraction. However, with the proliferation of smartphones, many people are temped to look for nearby services on Google or Yelp while driving at highway speeds. This is an even greater distraction than logo signs.
However, there is a possible counterargument in favor of logo signs. Without logo signs, the amount of drivers who resort to look for services on Google or Yelp could greatly increase, which would lead to more accidents. This is especially important in urban areas, where some states still don't allow logo signs in urban areas despite the MUTCD adding provisions in 2000. As far as I know, here is a list of states that permit logo signs in urban areas:
- Arizona (since 2013)
- Florida
- Georgia
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- North Carolina (I think so)
- Texas
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
Anyone know of any others? I know New Mexico technically allows logo signs in urban areas, but no engineering study has ever been performed in Albuquerque, which is why the Interstates within Albuquerque do not have logo signs installed except the ones on the outer reaches of the city (I-40 and Coors Blvd in the eastbound direction being the most inner-urban).
So, what does anyone here think? Could logo signs be a way of reducing the number of drivers who use Google or Yelp at highway speeds?
Add Massachusetts to that list. If there's a minimum of 800 feet spacing between adjacent signs available, they'll usually allow a LOGO sign to be placed anywhere (with the exception of roads south and east of the Cape Cod Canal - this is to preserve the "scenic qualities" of US 6 and Route 28).
Some places in California have logo signs, but it varies a lot by district, and seems more common in rural areas. Most infuriating is Santa Barbara, which combines no logo signs with no business signage visible from the freeway and an apparent general hostility to all but the most low-key business signage. On one visit to Vermont on I-89, the lack of either logo signage or overhead business signs led me to just keep driving to New Hampshire to grab breakfast across the border, where I could find what I wanted. (I don't know if the situation is now different on Interstates I haven't driven lately.)
Generic signs indicating fuel availability are OK, but you need the logo signs for eats and lodgings, since there are particularly strong brand preferences for those. Plus, if you've reserved lodgings but didn't bring (or have packed in the trunk) specific directions and other contact information, you can waste a lot of time and fuel looking for it, unless there are logo signs both on the freeway and on the exit ramp to point the way. My preferred place to grab dinner, Subway, can be particularly hard to find without help from logo signs or a smartphone (which I don't have). At least McDonald's have easily recognized Golden Arches visible in even poor lighting (except in places like Santa Barbara that apparently prohibit overhead signs), so I can default to that if need be.
I agree that logo signs are a really good idea, both for safety (not just discouraging smartphone use, but also fewer dangerous manuevers from people who belatedly notice signage for a place they're looking for), and also not wasting motorists' time and fuel.
I believe in many states businesses have to pay to have their logos appear on those signs, so the signs might be a means for highway departments to make a little money (surely not much in the ultimate scheme of things, but every little bit counts).
One point Oscar notes that's particularly important is the issue about wasting time looking for something. I like the way some states post auxiliary signs when you exit the highway telling you how far it is to the different businesses. That's relevant. If they're all too far away, I might just get back on the highway and go to a different exit.
Regarding smartphones and the like, I have an iPhone/iPad app (the iPad version is easier to use) called "iExit" that gives a wealth of information about what's available at each Interstate exit, and there's a button to have your phone call a business (if, say, it's a hotel and you want a reservation). I haven't tried using that feature on the iPad version so I don't know whether it asks you what number of yours you want it to ring (say, you have it ring your iPhone and then it connects you to the hotel). It is decidedly NOT a safe app to operate while you are driving, but on a number of occasions I've had my wife grab the iPad and find restaurants on the upcoming stretch of road rather than waiting to see what the blue signs list. The blue signs are useful, but sometimes when you just want to rule out McDonald's or whatever it's useful to be able to find out what's there for the next several exits so you can say, "Well, nothing there, so we'll go to McDonald's." (We're partial to Arby's, but they're not always the easiest to find either because they're a lot less ubiquitous at interchanges than McDonald's or Burger King.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
I believe in many states businesses have to pay to have their logos appear on those signs, so the signs might be a means for highway departments to make a little money (surely not much in the ultimate scheme of things, but every little bit counts).
Massachusetts charges a $1,200 annual fee for each business that has a LOGO on signs at an interchange. The only exceptions are for the business that initally installed the sign, who will have the annual fee waived until they recoup their costs (so, if a full sign installation at an interchange - 2 mainline and 2 ramp signs - costs $12,000, the business would have their annual fee waived for ten years), and for certain non-profits that appear on Attractions signs and can demonstrate that paying the fee would be an undue financial burden.
Massachusetts is also one of the few states that reviews and processes sign applications and fees in-house, instead of hiring an outside firm like Interstate Logos to manage their services signing program.
I use Gasbuddy while on the roads looking for a place to get gas. While the gas stations have their logos on signs, and some stations have their Regular Fuel price on billboards, it's good to know that if I need gas in the next 50 miles or so what my options are. I'll be miserable if I fuel up at a station, finding out the next exit or 2 gas was cheaper.
And yes, I know, we are probably talking under a $1 for the entire fuelup. It's just the point that I didn't get the cheapest gas I could've had!!
I have the GasBuddy app too. One reason I like it is that there are a fair number of annoying gas stations out there, including two right around the corner from our neighborhood, that fail to post prices for all grades, instead posting only the price for 87 octane and maybe diesel if they offer it. The two cars we drive the most both specify 91+ octane, so I want to know the price for super. All other things being equal (but all other things are never equal), I will patronize the station that posts all the prices rather than the one that posts only the 87 unless there's no other station around.
Quote from: oscar on August 14, 2014, 10:23:44 AM
Some places in California have logo signs, but it varies a lot by district, and seems more common in rural areas. Most infuriating is Santa Barbara, which combines no logo signs with no business signage visible from the freeway and an apparent general hostility to all but the most low-key business signage. On one visit to Vermont on I-89, the lack of either logo signage or overhead business signs led me to just keep driving to New Hampshire to grab breakfast across the border, where I could find what I wanted. (I don't know if the situation is now different on Interstates I haven't driven lately.)
From what I have read, California still only allows logo signs in rural areas. I know the same is true for New York as well.
Note that with Arizona's new urban logo sign program, the Flagstaff and Yuma areas (currently part of the rural program) are planned to be converted over to the urban program in terms of pricing and sign specifications after installation is complete in the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
From what I have read, California still only allows logo signs in rural areas. I know the same is true for New York as well.
We have a few suburban areas with logo signs in Albany (at least, unless you consider Clifton Park to be "rural"; IMO it's suburban all the way from Albany to Lake George).
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 13, 2014, 11:56:56 PM
Logo signs are controversial to some people, since some find them to be a distraction. However, with the proliferation of smartphones, many people are temped to look for nearby services on Google or Yelp while driving at highway speeds. This is an even greater distraction than logo signs.
However, there is a possible counterargument in favor of logo signs. Without logo signs, the amount of drivers who resort to look for services on Google or Yelp could greatly increase, which would lead to more accidents. This is especially important in urban areas, where some states still don't allow logo signs in urban areas despite the MUTCD adding provisions in 2000. As far as I know, here is a list of states that permit logo signs in urban areas:
- Arizona (since 2013)
- Florida
- Georgia
- Iowa
- Massachusetts (thanks roadman)
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- North Carolina (I think so)
- Texas
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
Anyone know of any others? I know New Mexico technically allows logo signs in urban areas, but no engineering study has ever been performed in Albuquerque, which is why the Interstates within Albuquerque do not have logo signs installed except the ones on the outer reaches of the city (I-40 and Coors Blvd in the eastbound direction being the most inner-urban).
So, what does anyone here think? Could logo signs be a way of reducing the number of drivers who use Google or Yelp at highway speeds?
They are definitely allowed in urban areas within Louisiana, though inconsistently signed. Baton Rouge has these posted at pretty much all the I-10 exits from Acadian Thruway eastward and all the I-12 exits. However, I-10 in Metairie does not have them.
Going back to the subject of logo signs, I wonder why no such engineering study has ever been done in Albuquerque despite New Mexico law allowing logo signs in urban areas. Perhaps a lack of funding could have something to do with it. I would think there would be sufficient space for logo signs on most Albuquerque highways with the possible exception of I-25 between Gibson and the Big I. In addition, logo signs can also probably be installed on Paseo Del Norte (NM 423) at the Coors Blvd exit in the westbound direction.
I remember Ohio got the logo signs mid-late '90s. A lot of other states already had 'em. The problem with the knife-and-fork signs was you never knew what you were going to get if you pulled off if the businesses weren't next to the highway. You'd pull off wanting sit-down but the food was just a small counter in a full-serve gas station with roller food. Or you wanted fast food because you were alone but there was a family restaurant there instead.
Don Turnbee's struggle: "Turnbee, who is currently on route to pick up his wife, Shelly, from her sister's house, said he would be on the lookout for a dining service sign with a miniature Wendy's logo. While Turnbee said he depends on these icons to inform him as to what dining options are ahead, he was confused by one near the Mercer exit, which had an image of just a fork and knife, and no other specific details.
Turnbee claimed the dining icon probably meant that the restaurants at that exit were of the sit-down variety only.
"I bet it had places like Perkins or Cracker Barrel," Turnbee said. "They aren't bad, but when I'm on my way somewhere I don't like to waste time with waiters and stuff.""
IMO, logo signs are more useful in urban areas. In rural and suburban areas, you can often see the selection from the road. However, with urban areas, it's a grab bag - a lot of the exits are strictly for residential or industrial areas.
iExit is my best friend while I'm traveling on the interstate.
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2014, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 02:01:42 PM
From what I have read, California still only allows logo signs in rural areas. I know the same is true for New York as well.
We have a few suburban areas with logo signs in Albany (at least, unless you consider Clifton Park to be "rural"; IMO it's suburban all the way from Albany to Lake George).
Found another one on I-787 in the city of Watervliet.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but I got confirmation of two other states that have logo signs in urban areas - Colorado and Washington. Several logo signs have been recently installed in the Denver area including some in the City of Denver itself. Also, while there are no logo signs in Seattle city limits, the Seattle suburbs all have them.
Wichita has them at a few locations, so I guess you can add Kansas.
One weird little quirk about logo signs is the variation on how the Subway logo is displayed. Because it is long and skinny, it doesn't fit very well in the square blank allocated for logos. Some states remedy this by placing it at an angle in the blank, while others stack the logo three times to take up all available space.
Oklahoma and Missouri both have logo signs, and they're pretty common in KS too (especially the free interstates).
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2015, 08:19:48 PM
One weird little quirk about logo signs is the variation on how the Subway logo is displayed. Because it is long and skinny, it doesn't fit very well in the square blank allocated for logos. Some states remedy this by placing it at an angle in the blank, while others stack the logo three times to take up all available space.
Both variants exist here in the Phoenix area. While the triple stacked version is by far the more common of the two, one exit (Loop 101 Agua Fria and Thunderbird) has the slanted version.
Logo signs are definitely a solution to googling fast food restaurants, but the type of restaurants most people seek on Yelp! aren't subsidized by giant corporations that give them the up front cash to pay for things like logo signs.
Hey cool, there's a King Donald's at this exit. I've been to some shitty ones, so I'd better pull out my phone to see how this one is before I waste time and exit.
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2015, 11:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.
Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.
Quote from: kphoger on March 02, 2015, 08:17:40 PM
Wichita has them at a few locations, so I guess you can add Kansas.
Might as well add South Dakota, too, as we don't really have urban areas.
I personally support logo signs (including within urban areas). Looking at logo signs is far less distracting then being on your phone. At least you've got your eye out the windshield when you're looking at a logo sign (opposed to looking down at your phone). And it can't possibly be that distracting, for all that should be necessary is a fairly quick glance. Also, I've always found that Subway one to be very funky indeed (I've usually seen the one with 3 "Subways" stacked on one another).
That could lead to smaller towns' economies losing out on income if people see only the knife-and-fork, assume the town only has a Subway and sit-down, and driving on to the next one or a truck stop.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2015, 11:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.
Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.
Speaking of which, I found two states which do not use logo signs - North Dakota (at least on all of I-29), and South Dakota. They put the symbols under the exit signage or on the exit signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_5218_zps9y185zo4.jpg&hash=6fddac9d54d93b0ca425706b42ad8f7672fea717) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_5218_zps9y185zo4.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_5203_zpsg9wryehm.jpg&hash=c7574c6736e3e86e8f4e6c4d7e55c3a6dc45cefd) (http://s837.photobucket.com/user/midamcrossrds/media/100_5203_zpsg9wryehm.jpg.html)
Sorry to bump, but going back to the subject of how the Subway logo is displayed on logo signs, this brings up an interesting fact: Here in the Phoenix area, Firehouse Subs is using a double stacked logo on many of its logo signs. This is a similar idea to the triple stacked Subway logo.
New Brunswick uses blue standalone signs with symbols on them, usually 3-4 KM from the exit, to show basic services. Ex:
From this sign one wouldn't know that there are two huge fuel stations, Subway, Tim Hortons, Dairy Queen, a country market, and even a liquor store.
https://goo.gl/maps/UbkSMvGmNjn
Nova Scotia uses logo signs, useful for people like me who collect Esso points.
https://goo.gl/maps/e6EVGTXDpXH2
Quote from: mrfoxboy on November 29, 2015, 11:48:51 PM
New Brunswick uses blue standalone signs with symbols on them, usually 3-4 KM from the exit, to show basic services. Ex:
From this sign one wouldn't know that there are two huge fuel stations, Subway, Tim Hortons, Dairy Queen, a country market, and even a liquor store.
In fact, New Brunswick actually did once have a logo sign program, but it was discontinued due to extremely low participation rates.
Quote from: Brandon on March 03, 2015, 10:36:35 AM
Speaking of which, I found two states which do not use logo signs - North Dakota (at least on all of I-29), and South Dakota. They put the symbols under the exit signage or on the exit signage.
That is very wrong.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscenicdakotas.com%2Fsouthdakota%2Fi-90%2Fexit260lodging.jpg&hash=177bbec8115102f9c4838204f54c8a27636b4068)
Quote from: Pink Jazz on November 30, 2015, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: mrfoxboy on November 29, 2015, 11:48:51 PM
New Brunswick uses blue standalone signs with symbols on them, usually 3-4 KM from the exit, to show basic services. Ex:
From this sign one wouldn't know that there are two huge fuel stations, Subway, Tim Hortons, Dairy Queen, a country market, and even a liquor store.
In fact, New Brunswick actually did once have a logo sign program, but it was discontinued due to extremely low participation rates.
Was not aware of that, however it was never something I really noticed until this thread. Do you have any pictures or something? I'd love to see how NB approached it.
As for states that continue to restrict the installation of logo signs only to rural highways, I hope someday there is a restaurant/gas/hotel chain that has the guts to file lawsuits against these states to overturn such outdated restrictions. California's policy of not allowing them in cities with a population more than 5000 is just plain ridiculous and should be overturned immediately.
Colorado doesn't allow logo signs. They use the standard blue square symbol signs
Quote from: US71 on December 08, 2015, 10:31:11 PM
Colorado doesn't allow logo signs. They use the standard blue square symbol signs
What do you mean?:
http://www.colorado.interstatelogos.com/state/
They even have several in Denver and Colorado Springs.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 08, 2015, 09:56:58 PM
California's policy of not allowing them in cities with a population more than 5000 is just plain ridiculous and should be overturned immediately.
Forcing people off the highway to locate local businesses sounds like an economic policy more than anything. I can see some benefit to it. Gas stations are so close to the freeway in urban areas, you don't really need logo signs to spot them. Plus, unless there's less than six or nine local business, there's going to be an issue with not enough space to advertise all the businesses nearby.
Quote
overturn such outdated restrictions
Right, because logo signs are such a newfangled way of getting to your next destination. That Google Maps crap is so silly. Thank god for the blue signs!! /s
No logo signs in VT whatsoever. We just have the service symbols on the interstates (most now on a separate BBS, were originally tacked onto the "exit now" sign) and on the ramps themselves, text readouts say FOOD #->, GAS # ->, etc. Don't think I've ever seen a logo sign in New Hampshire, either. Maine has a few, especially on the Maine Turnpike. CT has some logo signs mostly in more-rural-than-urban areas. What is interesting about CT is that sometimes the logo signs will only appear in a single direction. (example: CT 9 NB for Exit 19 has logo signs for gas and food, but heading SB only has a blue sign for "FOOD-PHONE-GAS-LODGING".
Quote from: jakeroot on December 09, 2015, 10:34:13 PM
Right, because logo signs are such a newfangled way of getting to your next destination. That Google Maps crap is so silly. Thank god for the blue signs!! /s
Unless the national MUTCD reinstates the restriction of logo signs to rural areas (which probably will never happen due to the potential economic consequences to states that allow them in urban areas), logo signs are just as useful (if not more) in urban areas than they are in rural areas, and any such restriction is a disservice to the businesses and the general public.
I have zero doubt that when Arizona launched their urban logo sign program, they factored in the competition with smartphones. Participation is very strong here in the Phoenix area and shows no signs of decline. In fact, two exits in north Phoenix on I-17 will be the first in the Valley to get three logo signs per direction beginning next year.
Again, I hope some major chain has the guts to file lawsuits against states that continue to restrict logo signs to rural highways, since such restrictions are totally meritless nanny state laws.
PA posts them randomly. I see some on I-81 when I go down that way, but in Harrisburg, logo signs kind of reappear and disappear.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 10, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
Again, I hope some major chain has the guts to file lawsuits against states that continue to restrict logo signs to rural highways, since such restrictions are totally meritless nanny state laws.
... or the state DOT could choose to eliminate LOGO signs all together. I'm sorry but I would rather have a few potholes filled than LOGO signs in urban areas. It's a much better use of my tax dollars IMO.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 10, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
Again, I hope some major chain has the guts to file lawsuits against states that continue to restrict logo signs to rural highways, since such restrictions are totally meritless nanny state laws.
Would you also want some chain to sue the states that don't do logo signs at all?
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 10, 2015, 07:08:49 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 10, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
Again, I hope some major chain has the guts to file lawsuits against states that continue to restrict logo signs to rural highways, since such restrictions are totally meritless nanny state laws.
... or the state DOT could choose to eliminate LOGO signs all together. I'm sorry but I would rather have a few potholes filled than LOGO signs in urban areas. It's a much better use of my tax dollars IMO.
Actually, little to no taxpayer money goes to logo signs because in most states the logo sign program generates revenue, thus it actually benefits taxpayers. Much of the costs are covered by the businesses who pay to be on the signs.
Maybe non-roadgeeks who do this have IQs that are the same as a rock. Seriously, how can you not a miss a four foot sign compared to a 5 inch phone.
One of them is them is stationary, and one of them is moving along at 65 mph with you. Guess which is which.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on December 10, 2015, 08:18:18 PM
One of them is them is stationary, and one of them is moving along at 65 mph with you. Guess which is which.
I can see a four foot sign at 65 mph. I can't see a phone that's stationary, or else I'm distracted.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2015, 11:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.
Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
I have this strange feeling that once logo signs are installed in the Tucson area there will be heavy opposition. Tucson is opposed to any road improvements and always tries to be the opposite of Phoenix. I am willing to bet that none of the Tucson area cities will allow the installation of trailblazer signs for businesses that are not located directly off the freeway.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 10, 2015, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2015, 11:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.
Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
Perhaps the remark was just in jest, but I've seen logo signs that just displayed in text the name of restaurants that didn't have a logo.
Quote from: theline on December 11, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 10, 2015, 08:20:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2015, 11:03:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 14, 2014, 03:51:41 AM
Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.
Even better, just use the symbols.
Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.
Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
Perhaps the remark was just in jest, but I've seen logo signs that just displayed in text the name of restaurants that didn't have a logo.
I have too, but the implication seemed to be that it would be better if simply a logo or generic symbol were displayed. This would discriminate against small independent businesses without a recognizable logo. Based on past discussions here, I realize there are folks who feel recognizable chains are the most reasonable place to stop, but I don't think it's a fair way to design this kind of program.
I've seen quite a few LOGO signs made for small businesses that, while not "generic" didn't have a fancy corporate logo. I remember Fancy Gap, VA had ones for the two old-school motels left over from the '40s that dominated the scene there back in the '80s.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 10, 2015, 08:20:42 PM
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples). 90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2015, 09:34:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 10, 2015, 08:20:42 PM
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples). 90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.
I know. Again, the premise I was responding to was that they should all be logos or generic symbols.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2015, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: theline on December 11, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Perhaps the remark was just in jest, but I've seen logo signs that just displayed in text the name of restaurants that didn't have a logo.
I have too, but the implication seemed to be that it would be better if simply a logo or generic symbol were displayed. This would discriminate against small independent businesses without a recognizable logo. Based on past discussions here, I realize there are folks who feel recognizable chains are the most reasonable place to stop, but I don't think it's a fair way to design this kind of program.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 19, 2015, 12:23:08 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2015, 09:34:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 10, 2015, 08:20:42 PM
It excludes any restaurant without a logo.
If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples). 90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.
I know. Again, the premise I was responding to was that they should all be logos or generic symbols.
Logo signs, just by human nature, favor businesses with actual logos. Here's a lodging sign in the suburban Seattle area. Frankly, the bottom two look miles more appealing just based on the logo. But that's not entirely fair to the Northwest Motor Inn, nor Hotel Puyallup, who may have equally nice hospitality (but just lack a logo).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmZC0WT2.png&hash=3a283fe287f87feaea66eaffb4cc0fdf759677cd)
FYI, Grand Canyon State Logo Signs has recently updated their website, and looking at photos of logo signs throughout the state, it appears that there has been a big increase in participation over the past year in both the urban and rural areas, as well as in Flagstaff and Yuma which have recently been migrated over from the rural program to the urban program. This pretty much debunks the myth that logo signs are unnecessary due to the widespread use of smartphones, otherwise there would be significant declines in participation of the program. And this is in a state where using a phone while driving is still legal despite the safety risks.