I saw a chart somewhere and it explained the FHWA Series.
It detailed out of B through EM when and where to use certain Series (i.e. Directional legend v. Destination legend).
Does anyone have a copy of their own? I would like to have it for reference.
Thanks!
Are you thinking of the FHWA's Standard Signs publication? (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium_eng.htm) It contains specs for every standard sign type, and there's also a "Standard Alphabets" section with the shapes of all characters in Series B through F as well as information about spacing.
Separately, the MUTCD's Chapter 2E (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm) has exhaustive tables showing letter sizes various types of text (cardinal directions, distance words, action words) on guide signs.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 18, 2018, 01:28:33 PM
Are you thinking of the FHWA's Standard Signs publication? (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ser-shs_millennium_eng.htm) It contains specs for every standard sign type, and there's also a "Standard Alphabets" section with the shapes of all characters in Series B through F as well as information about spacing.
Separately, the MUTCD's Chapter 2E (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm) has exhaustive tables showing letter sizes various types of text (cardinal directions, distance words, action words) on guide signs.
I noticed in the SHS there is (where legend is concerned) a C or D (indicating Series type). But I was hoping for a general list, like:
Destinations: Use EM or EEM
and use B through D for tight areas involving field legends. (I can't remember if this is right).
There are also older editions of the MUTCD online that are more specific as to FHWA Series applications in guide signing contexts. Current policy is wide-open--anything from B through F can be used anywhere, including on freeways. A general rule of thumb is that, prior to the 2003 MUTCD, Series C or D were normally used for conventional-road guide signs (though Vermont traditionally used Series B, Montana used Series E, and some states like California and Washington used mixed-case Series E Modified), while mixed-case Series E Modified was used for primary destination legend on freeways while either Series D or E were used for "small caps" elements like distance expressions, cardinal direction words, word "EXIT" in exit tabs, etc.
The Standard Alphabets used to be published separately but are now integrated into Standard Highway Signs (on FHWA's MUTCD website) and are now mixed-case for all series, not just E Modified.
I know that there seems to be great variability with street blades. I know for roadside mounted street blades many DOTs like to economize on sign width, resulting in the use of Series B. Other DOTs prefer to use Series C or D. For overhead mounted street blades, some DOTs use shorter letters in Series E(M) while others use taller letters in Series C or D. I actually find the use of taller narrower letters on street blades to be more legible than shorter wider letters.
I think J.N. Winkler has asserted in the past that research exists showing wider series to be more legible than narrower letters in general, but I'm not sure at what point X-height increases overcome that advantage.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on April 18, 2018, 05:55:44 PM
I know that there seems to be great variability with street blades. I know for roadside mounted street blades many DOTs like to economize on sign width, resulting in the use of Series B. Other DOTs prefer to use Series C or D. For overhead mounted street blades, some DOTs use shorter letters in Series E(M) while others use taller letters in Series C or D. I actually find the use of taller narrower letters on street blades to be more legible than shorter wider letters.
I understand your reasoning, and I too would get more out of tall and skinny than short and fat.
*No, that does not also imply how I prefer my women!</sarcasm> :-D :bigass:
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 18, 2018, 04:00:14 PM
There are also older editions of the MUTCD online that are more specific as to FHWA Series applications in guide signing contexts. Current policy is wide-open--anything from B through F can be used anywhere, including on freeways. A general rule of thumb is that, prior to the 2003 MUTCD, Series C or D were normally used for conventional-road guide signs (though Vermont traditionally used Series B, Montana used Series E, and some states like California and Washington used mixed-case Series E Modified), while mixed-case Series E Modified was used for primary destination legend on freeways while either Series D or E were used for "small caps" elements like distance expressions, cardinal direction words, word "EXIT" in exit tabs, etc.
The Standard Alphabets used to be published separately but are now integrated into Standard Highway Signs (on FHWA's MUTCD website) and are now mixed-case for all series, not just E Modified.
From what I have read in recent plans it seems that Arkansas uses EM for advisory/action legend (i.e. LEFT LANE, and EXIT ONLY). I doubt I could find older plans for other signage projects to cross-check that.
There are nominal unit legibilities, as follows (meters per millimeter of capital letter height):
| C | 0.5 |
| D | 0.6 |
| E | 0.7 |
| E Modified | 0.75 |
But my source for them is the 1998 edition of the New Zealand
MOTSAM, which refers readers to AS 1742.2 (the Australian transposition of
Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs) for details. The glyphs are the same, but the Australian standard provides for multiple levels of intercharacter spacing, and the values quoted are the default for each typeface. For Series C, D, and E this is "normal" but for Series E Modified this is "wide." Tight kerning reduces legibility to an extent, but no values for this reduction are quoted.
To quote just one example, a message in Series C has to be 20% higher than the same message in Series D to be equally legible. This means that if you are using a Series C legend (e.g., route number digits) at 15 in rather than Series D at 12 in, you are making a gain in legibility, but it is slight: (15 - 14.4)/14.4 = 4.17%.
In the case of street name blades, I personally do not believe claims for the greater legibility of thinner and taller are usually based on apples-to-apples comparisons. The blades having thinner and taller lettering tend to be newer and to use sheetings with higher contrast, both of which aid legibility.
Edit: Extended discussion is available, including a rough rule of equal areas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5007.msg109447#msg109447) for mixed-case series.
I have been playing around with the sizing tables on some of the route signs (mainly 3di), and I can't seem to get it right (i.e. it's stretched vertically or horizontally too much).
So, I am making I-630 (M1-1) in Inkscape and it is a bit challenging.
I am aiming to make my efforts into a template based around the observations and standards of the state, that way I can use them for random stuff and to create a library.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 18, 2018, 10:19:39 PM
I have been playing around with the sizing tables on some of the route signs (mainly 3di), and I can't seem to get it right (i.e. it's stretched vertically or horizontally too much).
So, I am making I-630 (M1-1) in Inkscape and it is a bit challenging.
I am aiming to make my efforts into a template based around the observations and standards of the state, that way I can use them for random stuff and to create a library.
One factor that many people overlook when trying to 'fit' a legend into a maximum panel size is the space between the letters themselves. SignCAD allows you to adjust this "inter-letter" spacing - it's indicated as a percentage of the FHWA standard. The trick is to use a spacing that is wide enough to both be legible at a distance and to minimize halation, but narrow enough so to enable the use of a narrower panel (this is especially important for street name blades). At one point, Massachusetts was using an inter-letter spacing of 75% of FHWA standard on guide signs, but has since increased the spacing to 85% of FHWA standard on most guide signs. Street name blades with longer legends are typically 70% to 75% of standard - this is to minimize overall panel width.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 18, 2018, 10:19:39 PM
I have been playing around with the sizing tables on some of the route signs (mainly 3di), and I can't seem to get it right (i.e. it's stretched vertically or horizontally too much).
So, I am making I-630 (M1-1) in Inkscape and it is a bit challenging.
I am aiming to make my efforts into a template based around the observations and standards of the state, that way I can use them for random stuff and to create a library.
The only way I can get the numerals to fit (as long as none of them is a '1') on a 3DI shield is to reduce the inter-character spacing (which is -50 in Photoshop).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fi-630_serD.png&hash=2723e5e0a747402e75b48dd7cedcf0dd9cc73f68)
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 18, 2018, 10:19:39 PM
I have been playing around with the sizing tables on some of the route signs (mainly 3di), and I can't seem to get it right (i.e. it's stretched vertically or horizontally too much).
So, I am making I-630 (M1-1) in Inkscape and it is a bit challenging.
I am aiming to make my efforts into a template based around the observations and standards of the state, that way I can use them for random stuff and to create a library.
The only way I can get the numerals to fit (as long as none of them is a '1') on a 3DI shield is to reduce the inter-character spacing (which is -50 in Photoshop).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fi-630_serD.png&hash=2723e5e0a747402e75b48dd7cedcf0dd9cc73f68)
Try using Series C for numerals but at the same height (below-shield from Wiki).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/I-630.svg/225px-I-630.svg.png)
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:09:07 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on April 19, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on April 18, 2018, 10:19:39 PM
I have been playing around with the sizing tables on some of the route signs (mainly 3di), and I can't seem to get it right (i.e. it's stretched vertically or horizontally too much).
So, I am making I-630 (M1-1) in Inkscape and it is a bit challenging.
I am aiming to make my efforts into a template based around the observations and standards of the state, that way I can use them for random stuff and to create a library.
The only way I can get the numerals to fit (as long as none of them is a '1') on a 3DI shield is to reduce the inter-character spacing (which is -50 in Photoshop).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fi-630_serD.png&hash=2723e5e0a747402e75b48dd7cedcf0dd9cc73f68)
Try using Series C for numerals but at the same height (below-shield from Wiki).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/I-630.svg/225px-I-630.svg.png)
From photos I have seen, it looks like C, but I was using D.
Also, from the looks of CA0608 (page 97), Series D is used on signage for M1-1. There must be a special spacing % used. I will try the -50% spacing in the FHWA Character Calculator.
There's gotta be some math that I am missing! If the shield is 30 x 24 and I want to center it, but also look accurate (:hmmm:) -- I don't know if District 6 is phasing on 630's state-named shields. Does anyone know if Manual of Traffic Signs (http://www.trafficsign.us/m1.html) is accurate? The guy seems to be based out of Arizona.
Also, do any of you often "sign" makers recommend using a grid?
With the Interstate shield, a common bodge is to move the digits up to the horizontal white line so that there is roughly the same amount of space between the digits and out to the white border strips that define the limits of the blue area.