I was playing around in GMAX (making more SimCity signs) the other day, and I thought of a question:
Why can't independent route marker banners (cardinal directions, "TO", "JCT", etc.) be used on BGSes?
For example, the sign below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc1%2Fhs011.snc1%2F2898_518903562563_162200124_30361642_1999468_n.jpg&hash=e0f6d4c1d74838cc782d5c3fc2a3c0802953aa71)
Why not have the directional banners instead of the words?
Here's an example I did in GMAX:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc1%2Fhs011.snc1%2F2898_518903557573_162200124_30361641_7531876_n.jpg&hash=f86c910140183e02b79a31e03e056cdf29d34745)
I realize that's a regulatory sign, but it's all I have at the moment.
Looking forward to discussion and multiple opinions!
because it looks a little gauche? the only reason banners have borders and are distinguishable from the background when they are independent signs is because they can't exactly be painted onto the air.
it's like having New Jersey style green sign shields (with the black background), except even sillier.
MoDOT does have a standard calling for "BUSINESS" to appear on guide signs as a tab rather than green-background legend.
Personally, I don't approve. If you are going to go to all of the trouble and expense of a large sign panel, why vitiate that by using banners with Series C (or even Series B) legend at a smaller letter height?
I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.
Another problem besides the tackiness factor is that having a white patch with text on an otherwise green sign might be construed as a regulatory patch. Other signs, like "EZ-Pass ONLY" signs, now place the word "ONLY" in a white patch to convey that it is a regulatory message on an otherwise guide-oriented sign. Allowing directional banners to follow the same scheme could cause confusion.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=NY+14+I-86&sll=36.879621,-95.273437&sspn=37.011094,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=14+Interstate+86,+Horseheads,+Chemung,+New+York+14845&ll=42.16493,-76.840138&spn=0.016891,0.027595&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.164778,-76.840086&panoid=92drdgN9aJgBEQxk54Mbig&cbp=12,171.64,,0,-4.64
It's possible.
New York isn't exactly the ambassador of regulation signage. Look at all the (really ugly) boxed street names that remain even though they aren't allowed anymore.
At least most of our signs look good, unlike California.
Quote from: deanej on June 05, 2010, 12:21:40 PM
At least most of our signs look good, unlike California.
our signs look damn good for being 50 years old.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19581012i1.jpg)
DelDOT used to do this back in the early days of interstate signage. And not quite the same, but how about these "TO" tabs on top of the BGS?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FSd69EagiANI%2FAAAAAAAAEyw%2FTi6ZOL0Wb18%2Fs640%2FIMG_2615.JPG&hash=b4a7cae5e21fa6e28593cabf5ae21869b7915352)
Personally I don't like it and wonder why its done, it makes the sign cluttered and harder to read. It's done in Nova Scotia though, which pisses me off.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.688885,-63.558526&spn=0,0.027466&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.688983,-63.558635&panoid=fGLxD6XzHWQojVfgHphRLg&cbp=12,315.82,,0,-13.42
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 04, 2010, 04:28:10 PM
MoDOT does have a standard calling for "BUSINESS" to appear on guide signs as a tab rather than green-background legend.
Like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2697%2F4183066127_88396b23f8.jpg&hash=a840ca992ceb5f86851b9604e995e33b0948a013)
They just started that a couple years ago and I think it looks ugly.
Working in and living near New Jersey, I have gotten used to seeing the standalone shields on the guide signs over the years. I don't mind the shields posted either way. I don't like the standalone banners posted on the signs, though. They can be harder to see than the text directly on the panel.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 05, 2010, 12:40:02 PM
our signs look damn good for being 50 years old.
I was talking about the ones with way too much information crammed on the sign and everything shoved where it would fit.
Looks pretty good actually.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toad.net%2F%7Eparndt%2F695.png&hash=2b905fd57141b1eedd2cc4e519b780653ace7044)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toad.net%2F%7Eparndt%2F97.png&hash=c372992ce956c40b1f0462e44fc03a8cf9921073)
^ In both cases, there's no reason normal white on green text couldn't have been used.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 04, 2010, 05:34:20 PM
I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.
It's a Standard in Section 2D.12, paragraph 6 of the 2009 MUTCD. I believe the language is new in this edition.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 2D.12
Standard:
06 If a route sign and its auxiliary signs are combined on a single sign with a green background, the auxiliary messages shall be white legends placed directly on the green background. Auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign or other type of sign.
Quote from: roadfro on June 06, 2010, 03:38:19 PM
^ In both cases, there's no reason normal white on green text couldn't have been used.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 04, 2010, 05:34:20 PM
I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.
It's a Standard in Section 2D.12, paragraph 6 of the 2009 MUTCD. I believe the language is new in this edition.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 2D.12
Standard:
06 If a route sign and its auxiliary signs are combined on a single sign with a green background, the auxiliary messages shall be white legends placed directly on the green background. Auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign or other type of sign.
Makes sense. There's a reason why I'm a SC4 sign engineer . . . so I can do whatever the heck I want! :P
Caught this last night but didn't have a camera so to the google maps. There are a few more but I have to find them again.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toad.net%2F%7Eparndt%2Fus29.jpg&hash=d931087d15e3d639dfb27435fd89537266ba34d2)
You mean like this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fileden.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F10%2F16%2F2145144%2F%2FDSC00685.jpg&hash=ba5e399e29d453831652ac522059b3bc560d4d7e)
Exactly.
Yes.
Unless the main portion of the sign was reused from another installation, there's no plausible explanation for why the "West" banner couldn't have been applied directly to the green background. The use of a separate banner introduces unnecessary visual clutter to the sign.
Another option would have been to use separate signage for the banner, shield, lane assignment and only messages. The guide sign method, however, provides more target value to the overall sign message.
These have been popping up a lot lately, replacing stand alone shields, etc.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fileden.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F10%2F16%2F2145144%2F%2FDSC00691.jpg&hash=464bcfffd718e5452b16c4bbecf6c734b2976f11)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fileden.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F10%2F16%2F2145144%2F%2FDSC00690.jpg&hash=76634db180720d1af5aa740c838aa0a448c4d52f)
UptownRoadGeek: I can't see any of your pictures. Does anyone else have this issue? They're just blank and semi-transparent.
I can see them...
I've figured it out: my university blocks the site the images are hosted on because it contains a known virus.
say what?
Quote from: deanej on June 17, 2010, 11:48:29 AM
I've figured it out: my university blocks the site the images are hosted on because it contains a known virus.
That can't be good. :-o
My best guess is that you may be using a university computer, that may be why the images wasn't shown. You might want to discuss it with an IT official about it.
Not on a university computer, be we don't have direct links to the internet - you have to go through the campus network.
Needless to say, this results in huge bottlenecks when everyone is on campus. But that's what you get when your university set up the network in the 1980s.
Hmm...that problem sounds awfully...familiar :D
Man I sure don't miss it. :-D
I may be the minority about this, but I quite like this practice when done correctly, i.e. a full-on green sign with a border. However, VDOT has (typically) managed to screw this up on signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Yorktown,+VA&sll=37.066442,-76.306648&sspn=0.010068,0.026157&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Yorktown,+York,+Virginia&ll=37.189391,-76.487117&spn=0.005026,0.013078&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.18947,-76.487171&panoid=YTvKAVzOdrcFA2sZJNPdgg&cbp=12,357.26,,0,5) installed at the US 17 / VA 105 intersection in York County. Not very attractive. I need to get an actual photo of them one day on my way to work...
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 19, 2010, 11:35:35 PM
I may be the minority about this, but I quite like this practice when done correctly, i.e. a full-on green sign with a border. However, VDOT has (typically) managed to screw this up on signs (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Yorktown,+VA&sll=37.066442,-76.306648&sspn=0.010068,0.026157&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Yorktown,+York,+Virginia&ll=37.189391,-76.487117&spn=0.005026,0.013078&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.18947,-76.487171&panoid=YTvKAVzOdrcFA2sZJNPdgg&cbp=12,357.26,,0,5) installed at the US 17 / VA 105 intersection in York County. Not very attractive. I need to get an actual photo of them one day on my way to work...
I've got a photo of one of these at the same intersection going SB on US 17 from January 2009 where there is a BGS along with normal shields independently to the right. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS17SOUTHATVA105ANDSR1050FORTEUSTIS.jpg&hash=2d96eec50ae04d2d5a1d6b46782f6be789b6c634)
And that is just pointless... They should just choose one method of the other. It looks worse than the full green sign IMO.
Williamsburg does a pretty decent job with these. Their's look pretty good IMO.
But if I recall correctly, theirs are on black backgrounds, similar to what Newport News does, which has a white border and looks a lot better.
A few Hampton Roads cities do this. I've seen the black signs in Williamsburg, Newport News, and Chesapeake. James City County also uses them in some areas (mainly closer to Williamsburg). The ones in Chesapeake are pretty ugly, though.
Sign in Newport News:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_vGM7FtU3Pdk%2FTA6CIWm2iGI%2FAAAAAAAADaA%2FBvPRwU9ztVE%2FIMGP2298.jpg&hash=04301dc2971512e5a9b0624ce9280a18f0dc2608)
And one in Chesapeake (with an error ALT US 337 shield; there is no ALT VA 337 here anyway):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2042%2F2268642708_6f59f82e81_b.jpg&hash=9ba739ac9132ee6c40ffafee29e11cbf63a0439b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2268642708/)
dark green versions of those Newport area signs float around too...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 21, 2010, 08:30:57 PM
dark green versions of those Newport area signs float around too...
Indeed. There's also some dark green signs on VA 199 near Williamsburg.