I was on I-5 the other day between CA-99 and CA-126 and noticed several Interstate shields that do not appear to be standard:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2FHighway%2520Shields%2520and%2520Concepts%2FCalifornia%2Fth_lebec_service_rd_sb_04.jpg&hash=5d32b7c78ccab9411c30bea91bcd23afd8c29bce) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Nidoking/Highway%20Shields%20and%20Concepts/California/?action=view¤t=lebec_service_rd_sb_04.jpg)
This pic from the Shield Gallery (which just happens to be located within the area I was in the other day) is more or less what I saw. At first I thought it was just a typical 3di shield, but the points are sharper, not rounded like they are on any Interstate shield.
Does anyone know what type of shield this is, and if vectors/specs exist of it?
EDIT: This I-8 shield does seem to have the same width of a 3di shield but also has the sharper points of the I-5 shield above.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2FHighway%2520Shields%2520and%2520Concepts%2FCalifornia%2Fth_CA19570081i1.jpg&hash=1c298997bf19147a8dfe112b17e14bff389da525) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Nidoking/Highway%20Shields%20and%20Concepts/California/?action=view¤t=CA19570081i1.jpg)
that's a 42x36 size interstate shield shrunk blindly to 36x36. there is no standard for it because it is not a standard.
See this post
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2253.msg51629#msg51629
Quote from: corco on November 30, 2010, 07:46:28 PM
See this post
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2253.msg51629#msg51629
Okay, it must be a compressed 3di shield, then. I'll try agentsteel's advice to see if I can get something looking similar to it.
Because I... actually sort of like how it looks.
Alright, I'm not very familiar with Inkscape (it's the only vector editor installed on this machine I'm using right now), but I came up with this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2Fg3.png&hash=672d28bf96fdd0ed0118a533d789ebf6d28654f8)
It's still not quite the shield that I saw, because the edge on this one is rounded, while the one I saw was very sharp.
Gah, my eyes! It's like a bad flashback to when I was last in California!
I need to find a bubble 3di to act as eyeball bleach!
Quote from: corco on November 30, 2010, 07:46:28 PM
See this post
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2253.msg51629#msg51629
When I saw the title of this thread, I was going to either repost my angular and bubble shields or link to my post but it looks like you beat me to it. Thanks Corco! :sombrero:
@Quillz...
Like Agentsteel said, there are no specs for these hideous angular 2di shields (thank god) or the portly 3di bubble shields (double thank god). I'm thinking the 2di angular shields were a manufacturing mistake. I thought these shields would fade into oblivion but they still keep popping up on I-5, I-80 and I-15 (the three 2d interstates I frequently travel).
Edit: Oh, what the hell. Here are the drawings from the post Corco linked to...
Angular 2-digit Shield...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetAngular2.png&hash=64f84ea81b1e2be4b85a3f8c8a61c0327a96ab4a)
Bubble 3-digit Shield...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FgetBubble2.png&hash=97cb08f5263d874351598225cc38ac65b3131b47)
General question. I have never seen a bubble shield in NJ, so far. Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 11:06:40 AM
Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
yes and no. NJ used some very unusual green route markers before 1961...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19560231i1.jpg)
The US marker was similar - just a number on a green background with a white border. Those are not 1948 spec, neither for reassurance (state name, US, number) nor for intersections (24" white square with a shield).
but in 1961 they went to bog-standard federal specification black squares.
as for interstates, NJ seemed to really like this variant of the 1957 and 1970 specs:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19790803i1.jpg)
that uses 10" numbers, just like 1970 spec, but keeps the wider margins and larger crown of '57, resulting in the slightly cramped appearance of the number.
nowadays, NJ uses standard 1970 specifications as do many other states, for their interstate, US, and state shields.
Quote from: Quillz on November 30, 2010, 08:10:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2Fg3.png&hash=672d28bf96fdd0ed0118a533d789ebf6d28654f8)
The image isn't coming through on my computer
Quote from: US71 on December 01, 2010, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 30, 2010, 08:10:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2Fg3.png&hash=672d28bf96fdd0ed0118a533d789ebf6d28654f8)
The image isn't coming through on my computer
i deleted it, it was bad
here's a cv version: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2FHighway%2520Shields%2520and%2520Concepts%2Fth_ca-5.png&hash=84e29da78aa96ba3b862f056f29cd09a2b4b81ae) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Nidoking/Highway%20Shields%20and%20Concepts/?action=view¤t=ca-5.png)
^^^
Quillz,
Whether you keep the image or not is your prerogative. However, it will be helpful for people who haven't read the thread to see all the images and see the progression you made toward better images.
none of these are really accurate, though... what i need is the 42×36 shield, that way i can get the proper look at the bottom.
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NJ19731951
Oddball 195 sign, is that a 1960s sign? Or is it newer, but NJ used a older blank?
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NJ19791951 and New Jersey's Wonderful 3DI huge signs. I hope NJ does not decide to entirely drop having the state name in the shield, on signs like that it is wonderful.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 02:25:23 PM
Oddball 195 sign, is that a 1960s sign? Or is it newer, but NJ used a older blank?
it probably is. it is definitely a 1961 specification shield.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 11:06:40 AM
General question. I have never seen a bubble shield in NJ, so far. Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
There's at least one on I-287 northbound between I-78 and the state line. I saw it last fall.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F382.jpg&hash=371864ca0fd9cab17c1d8e96a66e217c402e5243)
And then there's this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
Is that second one a stretched-out angular shield?
Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 02:57:18 PM
Is that second one a stretched-out angular shield?
no, the stretched-out angular shield is a standard 42x36
Then what is that NJ shield? First time I've ever seen that.
not every shield is standard...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CT/CT19580951i1.jpg)
That one there looks a lot like the I-5 one I saw. Is that another narrowed 42x36?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 11:06:40 AM
General question. I have never seen a bubble shield in NJ, so far. Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
There's at least one on I-287 northbound between I-78 and the state line. I saw it last fall.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F382.jpg&hash=371864ca0fd9cab17c1d8e96a66e217c402e5243)
And then there's this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
The horror!
Both of those shields need to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The 'standard' bubble's numeral's are garrishly huge. And the second... 'nuff said.
That second 287 is not even symmetrical... :\
Quote from: hbelkins on December 01, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_2%2FImages%2F428.jpg&hash=e65df4335cf21d7a2439afa6d6469b0cdcfd4e2a)
Gahhh! My eyes! My eyes! Oh the horror!!! :ded:
BTW, is that sign below the shield some sort of truck route sign? What does the number "102" within the truck symbol mean? I've never seen a sign like this before.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
BTW, is that sign below the shield some sort of truck route sign? What does the number "102" within the truck symbol mean? I've never seen a sign like this before.
That's the National Network Symbol sign. Too bad Wikipedia commons don't have that yet. :thumbdown:
Quote from: The Premier on December 01, 2010, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
BTW, is that sign below the shield some sort of truck route sign? What does the number "102" within the truck symbol mean? I've never seen a sign like this before.
That's the National Network Symbol sign. Too bad Wikipedia commons don't have that yet. :thumbdown:
So the "102" is kind of like a route number?
No...it means trucks greater than 102 inches in width are required to use the roads on that network.
Quote from: froggie on December 01, 2010, 05:46:11 PM
No...it means trucks greater than 102 inches in width are required to use the roads on that network.
Beat me to it. PA has something like that too..
ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20411.pdf
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 01, 2010, 03:07:41 PM
not every shield is standard...
Indeed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images210/lone_hill_ave_nb_app_i-210_02.jpg)
That one looks like the usual California 3di shield. Is the font different or something?
Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 06:30:32 PM
That one looks like the usual California 3di shield. Is the font different or something?
I think it's much smaller, and very slightly misshapen. 18"x22"?
Just want to say thanks very much to Jake for helping me find the proper shield size I was looking for. It let me make this incredible non-standard Interstate shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv45%2FNidoking%2Fth_rect5275.png&hash=24beaf57d6c1fad40f6ad107c4a5899572d0d30b) (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v45/Nidoking/?action=view¤t=rect5275.png)
And thus I can conclude that that style shield is what I saw on I-5. There were at least 4-5 of them, mostly as reassurance markers, between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic.
That Connecticut I-95 shield wouldn't look bad if it weren't for the blocky font and funky shape.
Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 09:57:34 PM
And thus I can conclude that that style shield is what I saw on I-5. There were at least 4-5 of them, mostly as reassurance markers, between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic.
they're all over the state. plenty here in San Diego County on I-5, I-8 and I-15
For some reason, I just never noticed them until the other day, as they were very prevalent on that particular stretch between the valleys. I haven't seen any on the stretch of I-5 in the S.F. Valley.
Are the I-405 shields in the valley using the current 3di shields, or the '61 spec?
Quote from: Quillz on December 01, 2010, 11:02:26 PM
Are the I-405 shields in the valley using the current 3di shields, or the '61 spec?
damn near every California shield is '61 spec. that includes every 405 I can recall with a handful of exceptions:
random bubble shield:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA20004051i1.jpg)
and... this! Which is actually a '61 specification, just for green signs, except for ... yeah ...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA20054051i1.jpg)
That's odd, then... Where exactly does California use the 3di 30×25 shields? That's the one that's all over Wikipedia and looks almost the same as the '61 shield, but obviously they're not the same.
Quote from: Quillz on December 02, 2010, 12:14:40 AM
That's odd, then... Where exactly does California use the 3di 30×25 shields? That's the one that's all over Wikipedia and looks almost the same as the '61 shield, but obviously they're not the same.
both are '61 spec. I have no idea why the disproportionate 30x25 was included in that specification manual, to go with 21x18 and 42x36, when the correctly proportioned size would have been 28x24. The 30x25 looks just a bit silly, with too much space between the state name and the number.
Quote from: Quillz on December 02, 2010, 12:14:40 AM
That's odd, then... Where exactly does California use the 3di 30×25 shields? That's the one that's all over Wikipedia and looks almost the same as the '61 shield, but obviously they're not the same.
I believe California uses the 30x25 3-digit shields for their "Freeway Entrance" assemblies found at freeway on-ramps. Since I already had a 30x25 shield in my library, I added the rest of the signs on this particular assembly (FREEWAY ENTRANCE - CA G92, Cardinal Direction sign - CA G47-1, Directional Arrow sign - CA G43) to my library so I could build this...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F580_Assembly.png&hash=263a47297dcc0a431dd0d642ae27d88888e2dfed)
This sign assembly uses the 30x25 3-digit shield and it's a pretty close match to what's found in the real world...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images580/i-580_fwy_entr.jpg)
looks like the shield in the photo uses DM numbers, while your design is D.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 02, 2010, 03:42:07 AM
looks like the shield in the photo uses DM numbers, while your design is D.
Yeah, that's something I've noticed over the years but using the Roadgeek fonts, all I have is D. I have not found a way to mimic D(M) yet.
Maybe I should have used this photo instead...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images580/i-580_shield_on_eden_canyon_exit_039.jpg)
If you have a vector graphics program like Inkscape, try giving the text an outer stroke of the same color as the digits, then adjusting the width of that stroke to match the appearance of DM.
I actually had no idea there was a D(M), I assume it's not a standard?
It's one of the developed fonts, but not very common.
I've never seen it on any MUTCD documentation, do you know when it first appeared? I know I've seen in many times before, because there have been many Series D signs that just never looked quite right to me.
It was never a federal standard. It was, however, used by Caltrans, Minnesota DOT, and Arizona DOT, and referenced directly as "Series D Modified" in old editions of the Arizona MOAS. It was basically a Stimsonite alphabet and there is a Stimsonite publication from, I believe, the early 1960's with specification details.
Seeing how California was a heavy user of button copy, can it be argued that D-Modified was developed to accommodate the button reflectors? Can it also be argued that E-Modified was developed for the same reason?
Series E Modified was developed to accommodate button reflectors: this is confirmed. I assume the same is true of Series D Modified, but I have no direct confirmation.
Does Series D Modified predate demountable button copy?
If Series DM originated from Stimsonite, the well-known button copy supplier, to me that's strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was created for the purpose of accommodating buttons.
I don't have any images handy, but WisDOT used a very hideous looking non-standard 2di shield for several years in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2010, 09:57:02 PM
I don't have any images handy, but WisDOT used a very hideous looking non-standard 2di shield for several years in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Mike
www.alpsroads.net/roads/wi/i-39/w135.jpg (cut and paste, don't just click)
That looks like the "angular" that is apparently fairy commonplace, but with the 1970-spec numerals. So, sort of a "modern classic," if you will ('61 shield with '70 numerals.) At least that's what it looks like to me.
Washington, D.C. has a few oddball interstate shields...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTKTyOTRnGTI%2FAAAAAAAAjCI%2FoUlrEpXDoQY%2Fs640%2FIMG_1423.JPG&hash=26cc500e51296088a3e7633014c442f7843a580e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTKUBXJiPowI%2FAAAAAAAAjCI%2F4xXfkrYwNq4%2Fs640%2FIMG_1547.JPG&hash=5a1dc9a6049e8927f94dc662f3d4d394cf74ab01)
Looks like a Helvetica or Arial shield.
That's Helvetica.
New Brunswick also uses Helvetica on the few I-95 shields they have (because they use it on all their own shields).
That reminds me, a local signshop seems to be using only Helvetica on their signs, there really is a crapload of those around here.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 04, 2010, 09:42:13 PM
Washington, D.C. has a few oddball interstate shields...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTKTyOTRnGTI%2FAAAAAAAAjCI%2FoUlrEpXDoQY%2Fs640%2FIMG_1423.JPG&hash=26cc500e51296088a3e7633014c442f7843a580e)
Helvetica and a 2di shield? :S That's also tiny.
Anyways, California has its oddballs apart from the bubble shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4017%2F4447321894_749c172097_z.jpg%3Fzz%3D1&hash=c57ddff20f5e475d16a620ae978bc959dac227c0)
Hmm... How was that I-880 angular shield made? It's not from stretching your typical 2di shield.
I spotted one in NJ on 295 Southbound, right after the NJ38 interchange (exit 40). it looks like a beet, that is what the off standard sign makes me think of. The sign is not visible on google streetview, so it is a newer sign. A few others along that strech of 295 seem to be off standard.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 11:06:40 AM
General question. I have never seen a bubble shield in NJ, so far. Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
There's some oddly shaped I-295 shields once you pass through the toll plazas in the southern part of the Turnpike. I remember seeing them at interchanges 2 and 3 definitely, if not 4 and 5. I drive through interchange 3 daily... I'll have to snap a pic.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on December 04, 2010, 09:42:13 PM
Washington, D.C. has a few oddball interstate shields...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FTKTyOTRnGTI%2FAAAAAAAAjCI%2FoUlrEpXDoQY%2Fs640%2FIMG_1423.JPG&hash=26cc500e51296088a3e7633014c442f7843a580e)
I bet the original I-395 shield looked better. Thank god they didn't remove the original SOUTH banner!
Quote from: tollboothrob on April 12, 2011, 03:07:41 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 01, 2010, 11:06:40 AM
General question. I have never seen a bubble shield in NJ, so far. Has NJ Historically been one to stick with standards? Except when it comes to the NJ Turnpike and its quirks.
There's some oddly shaped I-295 shields once you pass through the toll plazas in the southern part of the Turnpike. I remember seeing them at interchanges 2 and 3 definitely, if not 4 and 5. I drive through interchange 3 daily... I'll have to snap a pic.
I've seen a few bubble shields and otherwise oddly-shaped ones in Jersey.
The 710 in L.A. seems to only use state-name bubble shields for mainline reassurance (of which there is little). The 705 doesn't use any shields at all.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 13, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
The 705 in L.A. seems to only use state-name bubble shields for mainline reassurance (of which there is little).
you mean 710? if so, I'd never noticed that. the usual form of reassurance on the 710 is green overhead pull-through signs; offhand I cannot think of a single place where there's a stand-alone reassurance marker.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 13, 2011, 10:25:32 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 13, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
The 705 in L.A. seems to only use state-name bubble shields for mainline reassurance (of which there is little).
you mean 710? if so, I'd never noticed that. the usual form of reassurance on the 710 is green overhead pull-through signs; offhand I cannot think of a single place where there's a stand-alone reassurance marker.
At least three of them I noticed heading NB, but I drove the entire road at once.
I didn't know where to put this, so this seems like as good of a place as any. Wheel of Fortune this past week had a "Road Trip" theme. They had many different types of road signs as a background for the set. Included among these were several route marker signs. One was a somewhat wide-looking Interstate 80 sign in what looked like Helvetica. There were also two California-style US shields, also in Helvetica. What was somewhat disappointing was they did have one seemingly perfectly rendered state-name California Interstate shield in FHWA font-the problem was it was for the non-existent Interstate 50.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 17, 2011, 03:27:09 PM
I didn't know where to put this, so this seems like as good of a place as any. Wheel of Fortune this past week had a "Road Trip" theme. They had many different types of road signs as a background for the set. Included among these were several route marker signs. One was a somewhat wide-looking Interstate 80 sign in what looked like Helvetica. There were also two California-style US shields, also in Helvetica. What was somewhat disappointing was they did have one seemingly perfectly rendered state-name California Interstate shield in FHWA font-the problem was it was for the non-existent Interstate 50.
Reminds me of this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmacamour.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F03%2Fdsc_5242.jpg&hash=1d1ffd706d017715c8f17ea075aa434575aee588)
The shield uses Myriad Pro in place of the FHWA Series.
really? that's not EM? I'll be danged.
There are a couple of I-64 signs on overheads in the Charleston, WV area that look just like that sign.
Quote from: Quillz on April 18, 2011, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on April 17, 2011, 03:27:09 PM
I didn't know where to put this, so this seems like as good of a place as any. Wheel of Fortune this past week had a "Road Trip" theme. They had many different types of road signs as a background for the set. Included among these were several route marker signs. One was a somewhat wide-looking Interstate 80 sign in what looked like Helvetica. There were also two California-style US shields, also in Helvetica. What was somewhat disappointing was they did have one seemingly perfectly rendered state-name California Interstate shield in FHWA font-the problem was it was for the non-existent Interstate 50.
Reminds me of this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmacamour.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F03%2Fdsc_5242.jpg&hash=1d1ffd706d017715c8f17ea075aa434575aee588)
The shield uses Myriad Pro in place of the FHWA Series.
I believe Myriad Pro is a better substitute for Clearview.
I dunno, I doubt Myriad Pro has gotten any proper field testing for long-range visibility. It does work way better than Helvetica, though.
I actually perspective-corrected that 64 shield, and indeed that is not EM. But it is damn close - to within a margin of error of sign shop sloppiness.
Well, Myriad Pro does look a lot like E(M).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 20, 2011, 01:49:24 AM
I actually perspective-corrected that 64 shield, and indeed that is not EM. But it is damn close - to within a margin of error of sign shop sloppiness.
It looks like Interstate:
http://myfonts.us/td-3e2Co0 (http://myfonts.us/td-3e2Co0)
Quote from: Anonymity Lane on April 20, 2011, 02:43:34 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 20, 2011, 01:49:24 AM
I actually perspective-corrected that 64 shield, and indeed that is not EM. But it is damn close - to within a margin of error of sign shop sloppiness.
It looks like Interstate:
http://myfonts.us/td-3e2Co0 (http://myfonts.us/td-3e2Co0)
That makes sense. There's no reason for someone at Apple to have a spec-compliant FHWA font, but it seems likely they'd have a commercially-available "general purpose" typeface like Interstate.
It's Myriad Pro, Apple's corporate font since 2002. It does look similar to E(M) and Interstate, though.
The rest of the text is in Myriad Pro, but the shield doesn't seem to match. Compare the "64" on the shield to the "64" in "64-bit".
Hmm, you might be right. I think it is Interstate:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg573.imageshack.us%2Fimg573%2F6889%2F1957interstateshield181.png&hash=768f1b76c549421ea113aa3c794bb975f7dec6f2) (http://img573.imageshack.us/i/1957interstateshield181.png/)
Got the pics uploaded...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5229%2F5684010908_fe5f651b2a_z.jpg&hash=427737e3f326143ff9fa97421a2825ae31523adc)