Is it no longer approved for new installations?
The FHWA will be rescinding it's interim approval, as seen by this (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf) request by Grays Harbor County, Washington.
However, it's not clear if DOTs can continue to use these fonts for newer installations if they have them or are heavy users of Clearview (such as Texas, PennDOT, etc).
So basically, it is now an undead font?
Quote from: Zeffy on September 02, 2014, 06:23:30 PM
The FHWA will be rescinding it's interim approval, as seen by this (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf) request by Grays Harbor County, Washington.
However, it's not clear if DOTs can continue to use these fonts for newer installations if they have them or are heavy users of Clearview (such as Texas, PennDOT, etc).
It's pretty clear they can continue to use those fonts until their interim approval is rescinded. The approval goes to the agency, not to specific signing projects, so Arizona DOT as an agency has interim approval to use the Clearview font. Until that interim approval is rescinded, Arizona DOT can continue to post signs in Clearview.
Now, if, say, the Idaho Transportation Department came to FHWA wanting to post in Clearview, they'd probably be denied because they don't have interim approval and no new interim approvals are being granted.
In the letter, he doesn't say that they WILL rescinding approval, but rather, that they expect to. Call me stubborn, but I'm not biting on the "death of Clearview" until the FHWA releases a formal press letter with a definitive course of action.
If the interim approval is rescinded, I wonder if the creators of Clearview or the states that use it will file a lawsuit against the FHWA. Rescinding the interim approval would probably be a financial disaster for the state transportation authorities that use it, as they would have to spend lots of money on sign fabrication machines that use FHWA Series E Modified that the state agencies have probably scrapped after switching to Clearview.
I wonder if the FHWA will allow Series D or plain Series E as an alternative. After all, Series E modified was designed for button copy which nobody uses anymore. Using Series D or plain Series E would reduce the haloing caused by Series E modified due to their thinner strokes.
I hate to get political, but I wonder if the planned rescinding of the interim approval of Clearview has anything to do with Obama's hatred of anything of the Bush administration. After all, the interim approval was granted when George W. Bush was President.
These days, virtually all sign fabrication uses digital fonts; however, there would still be substantial costs to DOTs in moving back to the FHWA series fonts in terms of reworking standard sign templates.
And, frankly, given that FHWA allowed Georgia to get away with using its bogus unapproved Series D variant font for decades (and is still letting Georgia get away with non-standard type sizing on its new Series E/E(M) signs) I doubt FWHA will expend a lot of effort to stop departments that already have approval and want to continue using Clearview from doing so.
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
Wikipedia says between 20 and 30 states, not an exact number. I know that some states (such as New Mexico) are using it experimentally in specific districts rather than statewide.
QuoteIf the interim approval is rescinded, I wonder if the creators of Clearview or the states that use it will file a lawsuit against the FHWA. Rescinding the interim approval would probably be a financial disaster for the state transportation authorities that use it, as they would have to spend lots of money on sign fabrication machines that use FHWA Series E Modified that the state agencies have probably scrapped after switching to Clearview.
I highly doubt it, "interim approval" strongly implies that it could be pulled at any time, and without having seen the legalese in the interim approval language, I'd be pretty surprised if such a suit had any merit.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
This is
roughly where Clearview stands, as far as I can tell:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sammdot.ca%2Fclearview.png&hash=1743a1d7f1e5dbace60b58e7680dae5f37f42d92)
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview. (I don't seem to have any data on the territories.) There
may be are some mistakes in the map, so please let me know so I can fix them immediately.
I have never seen a Clearview sign on an Idaho Transportation Department maintained road
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
This is roughly where Clearview stands, as far as I can tell:
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview. (I don't seem to have any data on the territories.) There may be are some mistakes in the map, so please let me know so I can fix them immediately.
District 5 in New Mexico is using Clearview experimentally. Also, in Florida, the toll roads maintained by the Central Florida Expressway Authority (formerly the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority) in the Orlando area uses Clearview.
Puerto Rico does NOT use Clearview. Not sure about the other territories.
QuoteDistrict 5 in New Mexico is using Clearview experimentally.
Are you certain it's a district-wide thing? Looking at street blades, it looks to me like the city of Rio Rancho is doing it as opposed to NMDOT (the street blades on NM-528 in Rio Rancho are consistent with other local installs), but that's not necessarily the district experimenting with it.
Rio Rancho, like NMDOT, doesn't have interim approval for Clearview (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm) but Rio Rancho has independently asked for interim approval for other things, so them doing so for Clearview would hardly be a stretch.
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview.
That's an excellent map, Sammi. Did you make it? Also, what are the green/yellow dashes? I want to think that it means half and half, but doesn't PA use Clearview extensively?
To add to the list of states, like Florida, Utah uses Clearview on a limited basis (only one freeway near SLC). California has used Clearview but only on an EXTREMELY limited basis (like only or two signs). I have seen Clearview on the freeway in Washington State, but like California, on only one sign near Tacoma.
Quote from: corco on September 06, 2014, 10:18:22 PM
QuoteDistrict 5 in New Mexico is using Clearview experimentally.
Are you certain it's a district-wide thing? Looking at street blades, it looks to me like the city of Rio Rancho is doing it as opposed to NMDOT (the street blades on NM-528 in Rio Rancho are consistent with other local installs), but that's not necessarily the district experimenting with it.
In fact, on the list of interim approved places (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm), it lists the city of Rio Rancho but not NMDOT.
Interesting, considering Rio Rancho is in District 3. However, there have been reports of Clearview signs along several District 5 signs along I-25, including the NM 599, US 84/285, and NM 502 exits.
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
That's an excellent map, Sammi. Did you make it?
I did. :) I've actually had it for a few months before this.
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
Also, what are the green/yellow dashes? I want to think that it means half and half,
Roughly half-and-half, yeah, or maybe in the process of switching. I don't even know. :P
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
but doesn't PA use Clearview extensively?
It does, and it's marked yellow on the map. Unless you were referring to New York?
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
but doesn't PA use Clearview extensively?
It does, and it's marked yellow on the map. Unless you were referring to New York?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBIx6i.gif&hash=7a4f095749d2a3a6d6df00d0be864aef90c597f0)
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 06, 2014, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: corco on September 06, 2014, 10:18:22 PM
QuoteDistrict 5 in New Mexico is using Clearview experimentally.
Are you certain it's a district-wide thing? Looking at street blades, it looks to me like the city of Rio Rancho is doing it as opposed to NMDOT (the street blades on NM-528 in Rio Rancho are consistent with other local installs), but that's not necessarily the district experimenting with it.
In fact, on the list of interim approved places (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm), it lists the city of Rio Rancho but not NMDOT.
Interesting, considering Rio Rancho is in District 3. However, there have been reports of Clearview signs along several District 5 signs along I-25, including the NM 599, US 84/285, and NM 502 exits.
Oh, okay. Nice, do you know when those signs came up or which signs they are specifically? Street view around Santa Fe is from April to June 2014, so unless they were just installed they should be there.
Quote from: corco on September 06, 2014, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 06, 2014, 10:24:58 PM
Quote from: corco on September 06, 2014, 10:18:22 PM
QuoteDistrict 5 in New Mexico is using Clearview experimentally.
Are you certain it's a district-wide thing? Looking at street blades, it looks to me like the city of Rio Rancho is doing it as opposed to NMDOT (the street blades on NM-528 in Rio Rancho are consistent with other local installs), but that's not necessarily the district experimenting with it.
In fact, on the list of interim approved places (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ialistreq.htm), it lists the city of Rio Rancho but not NMDOT.
Interesting, considering Rio Rancho is in District 3. However, there have been reports of Clearview signs along several District 5 signs along I-25, including the NM 599, US 84/285, and NM 502 exits.
Oh, okay. Nice, do you know when those signs came up or which signs they are specifically? Street view around Santa Fe is from April to June 2014, so unless they were just installed they should be there.
Apparently, they were installed last April:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-mexico/1078978-possible-first-clearview-font-road-signs-2.html
BTW, perhaps I misread the post, and the signs are simply located on those highways instead of specifically at the interchanges of I-25 and those highways.
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
This is roughly where Clearview stands, as far as I can tell:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sammdot.ca%2Fclearview.png&hash=1743a1d7f1e5dbace60b58e7680dae5f37f42d92)
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview. (I don't seem to have any data on the territories.) There may be are some mistakes in the map, so please let me know so I can fix them immediately.
New Jersey uses Clearview on the street sign blades/signs in Somerset and Union(?) Counties, but that's about it. There was also one rogue installation of a Clearview overhead guide sign on I-676 for Exit 4.
There would be close to zero expense to switch back to FHWA Series fonts. All states still use FHWA Series for non-guide sign contexts, such as regulatory and warning signs. Existing signs can remain until they wear out. There is a thread in Mid-South where AHTD is on record as saying that switching back would be as simple as pushing a button.
The Clearview designers can certainly attempt a lawsuit but the government is like any other customer and is not obligated to buy anything just because they did in the past. Likewise, a state government would be ill advised to sue the feds over the issue because they were made well aware that Clearview was under testing and they were free not to participate.
Also, I believe the CFEA (Central Florida Expressway Authority) uses Clearview, but not FDOT or any other agency down in Florida.
EDIT: But you already knew this because Pink Jazz posted this and I didn't look first... sorry! :banghead:
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
That's an excellent map, Sammi. Did you make it?
I did. :) I've actually had it for a few months before this.
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
Also, what are the green/yellow dashes? I want to think that it means half and half,
Roughly half-and-half, yeah, or maybe in the process of switching. I don't even know. :P
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
but doesn't PA use Clearview extensively?
It does, and it's marked yellow on the map. Unless you were referring to New York?
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
This is roughly where Clearview stands, as far as I can tell:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sammdot.ca%2Fclearview.png&hash=1743a1d7f1e5dbace60b58e7680dae5f37f42d92)
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview. (I don't seem to have any data on the territories.) There may be are some mistakes in the map, so please let me know so I can fix them immediately.
In SD, we only use Clearview for street signs. SDDOT has NEVER used a Clearview sign, to my knowledge... but that hasn't stopped cities, like Spearfish and Rapid City, from using it on their own signs.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
That's an excellent map, Sammi. Did you make it?
I did. :) I've actually had it for a few months before this.
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
Also, what are the green/yellow dashes? I want to think that it means half and half,
Roughly half-and-half, yeah, or maybe in the process of switching. I don't even know. :P
Quote from: jake on September 06, 2014, 10:23:26 PM
but doesn't PA use Clearview extensively?
It does, and it's marked yellow on the map. Unless you were referring to New York?
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
New York City and Westchester County use it. New street blades for the past few years in the City are Clearview and, among other places, the Bronx River Parkway has a few (ugly) Clearview BGSes.
In Ohio, ODOT uses it almost exclusively. The Turnpike used FHWA fonts after ODOT switched over, but I don't know if they have made the switch on signs they made themselves.
I haven't noticed too much Clearview here in Alabama, but then again I have a hard time telling similar fonts apart.
Quote from: cl94 on September 07, 2014, 12:34:54 AM
New York City and Westchester County use it. New street blades for the past few years in the City are Clearview and, among other places, the Bronx River Parkway has a few (ugly) Clearview BGSes.
Those signs are so bad I obviously purged the memory of making my BRP exit list from my mind. And now I have to live with this unholy knowledge. Thankfully I live in a location where I don't have to think about that on a regular basis. The only Clearview around here is Thruway, which looks like supreme beauty in comparison to Westchester County's Clearview signs.
Quote from: vdeane on September 07, 2014, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 07, 2014, 12:34:54 AM
New York City and Westchester County use it. New street blades for the past few years in the City are Clearview and, among other places, the Bronx River Parkway has a few (ugly) Clearview BGSes.
Those signs are so bad I obviously purged the memory of making my BRP exit list from my mind. And now I have to live with this unholy knowledge. Thankfully I live in a location where I don't have to think about that on a regular basis. The only Clearview around here is Thruway, which looks like supreme beauty in comparison to Westchester County's Clearview signs.
Albany Section's are tolerable. They don't hurt my eyes. Buffalo Section's are another story altogether. They even repeat the mistakes present on the original signs in some cases.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
There is plenty of Clearview in Iowa, but old signs not in Clearview are still plentiful as well.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 06, 2014, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: sammi on September 06, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on September 06, 2014, 09:54:55 PM
How many state DOTs are using Clearview now?
This is roughly where Clearview stands, as far as I can tell:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.sammdot.ca%2Fclearview.png&hash=1743a1d7f1e5dbace60b58e7680dae5f37f42d92)
where green states and provinces are using FHWA series, and yellow ones are using Clearview. (I don't seem to have any data on the territories.) There may be are some mistakes in the map, so please let me know so I can fix them immediately.
New Jersey uses Clearview on the street sign blades/signs in Somerset and Union(?) Counties, but that's about it. There was also one rogue installation of a Clearview overhead guide sign on I-676 for Exit 4.
New Jersey is using Clearview extensively. I've seen many examples recently of perfectly fine and legible signs that have been replaced with ugly Clearview ones.
Quote from: signalman on September 07, 2014, 05:03:14 PM
New Jersey is using Clearview extensively. I've seen many examples recently of perfectly fine and legible signs that have been replaced with ugly Clearview ones.
Where? All the new signs I've been seeing have been in Highway Gothic.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 07, 2014, 05:06:30 PM
Where? All the new signs I've been seeing have been in Highway Gothic.
I've seen several LGS and distance signs on I-80 in Clearview, or at least what I thought was Clearview. It may have been Highway Gothic, I am no font expert. In all cases though, the font is ugly and there was no reason to replace the old sign.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 06, 2014, 09:22:08 PM
I hate to get political, but I wonder if the planned rescinding of the interim approval of Clearview has anything to do with Obama's hatred of anything of the Bush administration. After all, the interim approval was granted when George W. Bush was President.
Your tinfoil hat is waiting for you in the front room.
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
There are Clearview signs along NYSDOT roads. I know of the locations of at least three. It's not region-specific, either.
Quote from: cu2010 on September 07, 2014, 05:58:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
There are Clearview signs along NYSDOT roads. I know of the locations of at least three. It's not region-specific, either.
Where the hell are these things so I can take them out? I thought NYSDOT was a Clearview-free zone. Hell, they've been installing FHWA this week.
Quote from: cu2010 on September 07, 2014, 05:58:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
There are Clearview signs along NYSDOT roads. I know of the locations of at least three. It's not region-specific, either.
I assume you mean like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysroads.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FNY%2Fny14a%2F100_8554-s.JPG&hash=8dcf52aa212a81007b2539ebec1693a2249ac468)
I know the person who does signs for Region 6 (where these signs are most prolific) and he says that they're a contractor error and there won't be new signs installed like that.
Quote from: vdeane on September 08, 2014, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: cu2010 on September 07, 2014, 05:58:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 06, 2014, 11:13:24 PM
In the case of NY, it means "NYSTA uses it by NYSDOT doesn't". I don't know about Ohio and Iowa.
There are Clearview signs along NYSDOT roads. I know of the locations of at least three. It's not region-specific, either.
I assume you mean like this?
[image]
I know the person who does signs for Region 6 (where these signs are most prolific) and he says that they're a contractor error and there won't be new signs installed like that.
Thank god. This state doesn't need any more Clearview than it already has. Bad enough that NYSTA and a few counties/cities use it.
I can honestly say I like the look of Clearview.
Quote from: vdeane on September 08, 2014, 01:12:55 PM
I know the person who does signs for Region 6 (where these signs are most prolific) and he says that they're a contractor error and there won't be new signs installed like that.
It's not just Region 6, though. I've seen a couple street blades along NY104 near Oswego (R3), a direction sign along US9 in Wappingers Falls (R8), and a direction sign along US11 near Champlain (R7). The R7 example is a fairly recent install...then again, most R7 signage these days is getting worse.
I'm just saying that they exist. :p
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories also use Clearview. I've also seen it used in Gloucester County in New Jersey.
I can't believe people are still complaining about its aesthetics years into it!
I believe Ohio has finally switched to all Clearview. All of the new sign installations on I-71 and I-75 in the southwest district are in Clearview, and new sign installations in Columbus and Cleveland (from last month) were in Clearview.
If you want ugly, look at the DRPA signage, not even Clearview or Highway Gothic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_90%2Fe130.jpg&hash=d0f7bf4bbddf9639f2de3965a97e3aff4b9d6d73)
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 10, 2014, 08:58:11 AM
I can't believe people are still complaining about its aesthetics years into it!
If it was ugly yesterday then it's ugly today. Car enthusiasts are still complaining about how ugly the AMC Pacer is and that's been nearly 40 years ago.
That DRPA signage has other issues. Is it "TO SOUTH County 644, SOUTH NJ 73, SOUTH I-295 and SOUTH NJ TPK" or does the south apply to just NJ 73?
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 10, 2014, 08:58:11 AM
I can't believe people are still complaining about its aesthetics years into it!
If it was ugly yesterday then it's ugly today. Car enthusiasts are still complaining about how ugly the AMC Pacer is and that's been nearly 40 years ago.
Car enthusiasts with sticks up their asses, maybe. The Pacer was a thing of beauty, an icon of its time. Clearview not so much.
If you want to see ugly...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15195336785_66981e0685_c.jpg)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2014, 09:20:26 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 10, 2014, 08:58:11 AM
I can't believe people are still complaining about its aesthetics years into it!
If it was ugly yesterday then it's ugly today. Car enthusiasts are still complaining about how ugly the AMC Pacer is and that's been nearly 40 years ago.
Car enthusiasts with sticks up their asses, maybe. The Pacer was a thing of beauty, an icon of its time. Clearview not so much.
I wouldn't say it was beautiful, but it was certainly iconic. I could have used a dozen other cars for an example, like the '58 Edsel (which I think was an attractive car) or the Pontiac Aztek.
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:29:53 AMPontiac Aztek.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 10, 2014, 09:19:58 AM
That DRPA signage has other issues. Is it "TO SOUTH County 644, SOUTH NJ 73, SOUTH I-295 and SOUTH NJ TPK" or does the south apply to just NJ 73?
It only applies to NJ 73. NJ 90 ends at NJ 73 heading southbound where you'll get to I-295 and further along, the Turnpike if you keep following it.
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
If you want to see ugly...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15195336785_66981e0685_c.jpg)
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 10, 2014, 10:11:18 AM
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
That's saying a lot, because all Clearview signs are ugly. I sincerely hope that the feds ban the font from new installations and we can go back to the handsome FHWA font series.
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 10, 2014, 10:11:18 AM
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
That's saying a lot, because all Clearview signs are ugly. I sincerely hope that the feds ban the font from new installations and we can go back to the handsome FHWA font series.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbEjHW.gif&hash=1add87816d89292236463009b4414359ade6c1f1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130329210054%2Ferashinobionline%2Fimages%2F1%2F1a%2FU_mad_bro_by_zombieatnight-d3ahn40.jpg&hash=0a5db6a63484d25a30143d9fb0d55eb8a6bca983)
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 10, 2014, 02:31:08 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130329210054%2Ferashinobionline%2Fimages%2F1%2F1a%2FU_mad_bro_by_zombieatnight-d3ahn40.jpg&hash=0a5db6a63484d25a30143d9fb0d55eb8a6bca983)
Your name is Sherman. How fitting...
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 10, 2014, 10:11:18 AM
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
That's saying a lot, because all Clearview signs are ugly. I sincerely hope that the feds ban the font from new installations and we can go back to the handsome FHWA font series.
I don't disagree with the core of your argument, but I differ in that I argue there's a spectrum of good to sucky for signs, regardless of the typeface. The Creek Turnpike sign posted here would still be awful in FHWA Series fonts, because many of its issues are typeface-agnostic–the lack of margins, bad spacing in general, use of too narrow a series, etc. I think that if you have two identically designed signs and one is Clearview and one is FHWA Series, the FHWA Series sign is usually preferable.
Regardless of the typeface, I am sure we can continue to look to OTA and ODOT as the unparalleled leaders in the design and installation of ugly road signs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2014, 04:06:41 PM
Regardless of the typeface, I am sure we can continue to look to OTA and ODOT as the unparalleled leaders in the design and installation of ugly road signs.
DRPA says hi.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/US_69_Craig_Co.jpg/800px-US_69_Craig_Co.jpg)
You can switch to Helvetica with the click of a button, but it takes active effort to suck this hard.
I don't think I've ever seen Clearview here in Connecticut, save for one instance along I-84 in Waterbury.
As for your map Sammi, the only thing I thought when I saw it: Location of fans for either the Green Bay Packers or (CFL) Edmonton Eskimos! :D
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2014, 08:24:09 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/US_69_Craig_Co.jpg/800px-US_69_Craig_Co.jpg)
You can switch to Helvetica with the click of a button, but it takes active effort to suck this hard.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2719/4209632583_896181b58b_b.jpg)
^^^^^^^
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkbjackson.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fimage69.jpg&hash=28f871f8f580b223315e22b8af2e730c46a58f19)
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2719/4209632583_896181b58b_b.jpg)
I know I've seen that one before, but only now did I notice that the E in LEFT appears to be maybe most of a chopped off capital B backwards.
How does Oklahoma do it? I bet Dollar Tree sells better signs. :P
Why do they still build the gantries outward for lights? It looks like you can fit some nice fluorescent tubes up there :P
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 12, 2014, 08:43:05 AM
I know I've seen that one before, but only now did I notice that the E in LEFT appears to be maybe most of a chopped off capital B backwards.
could also be a lowercase m on its side?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 11, 2014, 09:15:19 PM
I don't think I've ever seen Clearview here in Connecticut, save for one instance along I-84 in Waterbury.
That one has since been replaced about a year or two ago.
Quote from: bugo on September 12, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2014, 08:24:09 PM
<image snipped>
<image snipped>
Okay, okay, fine. DRPA sucks, but apparently Oklahoma has an even greater case of suck when it comes to signs.
MTA signs are ridiculous too, but the Triboro still has a couple signs that are ridiculous in non-reflective button copy. Not sure whether to love or hate.
See for example the sign on the left here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7977931,-73.9198376,3a,34.6y,211.97h,103.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNGkqyl81Prj1g_VzrUCT3w!2e0).
Wisconsin has clearview only on the Madison Beltline between Park St and the Insterstate. There will be no more installations of Clearview by WisDOT. However, local munis are using Clearview on their signs (street blades in particular).
Quote from: Zeffy on September 10, 2014, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
If you want to see ugly...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15195336785_66981e0685_c.jpg)
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
and it sits right next to a very nice looking Highway Gothic sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 14, 2014, 12:15:23 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 10, 2014, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:22:13 AM
If you want to see ugly...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15195336785_66981e0685_c.jpg)
That's... that's probably one of the ugliest you can get with Clearview.
and it sits right next to a very nice looking Highway Gothic sign.
Somehow that is the perfect metaphor for the state of Oklahoma.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 13, 2014, 09:54:23 PM
MTA signs are ridiculous too, but the Triboro still has a couple signs that are ridiculous in non-reflective button copy. Not sure whether to love or hate.
See for example the sign on the left here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7977931,-73.9198376,3a,34.6y,211.97h,103.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNGkqyl81Prj1g_VzrUCT3w!2e0).
The great paradox. I guess it would be the equivalent to being the less attractive sibling of a hot celebrity. Same great DNA, poorer results.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 10, 2014, 09:34:44 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 10, 2014, 09:29:53 AMPontiac Aztek.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
The Pontiac Aztek was ahead of its time. Look at any new car being produced today - the similarities to the Aztek are striking.
iPhone
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 10, 2014, 09:07:37 AM
If you want ugly, look at the DRPA signage, not even Clearview or Highway Gothic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fnj_90%2Fe130.jpg&hash=d0f7bf4bbddf9639f2de3965a97e3aff4b9d6d73)
Ugh that monstrosity pulled me out of lurking to complain about DRPA's god awful Helvetica signs. It's bad enough I've gotta pay $5 a pop to go over their bridges but then my toll goes toward shitty signs like that? :banghead:
Quote from: spooky on September 12, 2014, 09:48:42 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 12, 2014, 08:43:05 AM
I know I've seen that one before, but only now did I notice that the E in LEFT appears to be maybe most of a chopped off capital B backwards.
could also be a lowercase m on its side?
No, that's a cut B. An m would have a tab on the left side, and both arches would be of equal size. This one has arches of two different sizes; hence, it must be a B.