Over the last week C-DOT has replaced a couple of "perfectly good" BGSs along I-70 just west of Glenwood Springs.
The good news was that they were not replaced by Clearviews.
What they did do that irks me is that instead of the final BGS saying:
"EXIT 109"
"Canyon Creek" (right diagonal exit arrow)
as it use to say, it now says:
"EXIT 109"
"Canyon Creek"
"Next Right"
The only diagonal exit arrow that is seen for the exit is on the gore sign.
I have always hated when a State DOT would only give a text description for the actual exit on a BGS instead of using an actual diagonal arrow. There are a few spots on I-70 in Colorado that do say "NEXT RIGHT", "RIGHT LANE" (which makes no sense because the right lane is technically a through lane and not the exit ramp.) or in some occurrences the only indication is a gore exit sign (mostly for access roads that have no outlet).
Pennsylvania (at least 5-10 years ago) seemed to do that a lot by either noting an off ramp by saying "NEXT RIGHT" or "RIGHT LANE" just prior to the start of the exit ramp instead of a diagonal arrow.
Is it just me or does this form of text-only BG Exit Sign grate on others as well? :hmmm:
It comes down to aesthetic balance, I think. There are signs that are too big for the amount of text on them and thus would greatly benefit from a shield or graphic of some kind. But if it's a rather small sign, I'm fine with just text, because if you try to throw a graphic on it, the sign will look too busy.
Quote from: Quillz on December 24, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
It comes down to aesthetic balance, I think. There are signs that are too big for the amount of text on them and thus would greatly benefit from a shield or graphic of some kind. But if it's a rather small sign, I'm fine with just text, because if you try to throw a graphic on it, the sign will look too busy.
I disagree. The final BGS at the actual exit (sometimes called an "Exit Direction" sign) should always have an arrow included on the sign. Using "NEXT RIGHT" instead of an arrow is not good enough IMO. Besides, isn't there something in the MUTCD that requires the use of an arrow on exit direction signs?
California uses the term "NEXT RIGHT" or "NEXT EXIT" on advance guide signs but never on an exit sign.
Yeah, I read an arrow to mean "Exit here" and "NEXT RIGHT" to mean "Hey, the exit is coming up"
There are certain instances where I'd rather have "NEXT RIGHT" on the final sign- on I-25 coming northbound towards Wheatland WY, for instance, the exit sign with arrow for WYO 34 is about half a mile before the actual gore, so in that instance "NEXT RIGHT" should be fine. With the arrow, you throw on your blinker thinking you're exiting right then and look like an idiot because it's half a mile to the actual exit.
I guess if it's more than a 1/4 mile from the gore, I'd rather see "NEXT RIGHT" but in all other instances an arrow makes more sense.
In my opinion, there is never a case when "Next Right" should be used on an Interstate. In the case of an exit direction sign, an arrow should be used. Auxiliary signs like directions to hospitals, tourist destinations, etc. should use the exit number at the bottom. ("Wfor Memorial Hospital/Exit 96") This makes things less ambiguous whenever you have a cloverleaf or two otherwise close-together ramps; otherwise you have to deal with "Next Right" and "Second Right" and it's easy to lose track of whether the first right has passed yet.
"NEXT RIGHT" (and to some extent "SECOND RIGHT") are pretty common in California since we didn't start using exit numbers until the turn of the century. It is still common to see roadside signs like "HP Pavilion/NEXT RIGHT" and "Santa Clara University/SECOND RIGHT" posted within a few hundred feet of one another before an interchange.
While California has adopted exit numbering (albeit implementation has been slow), most new roadside signs using NEXT RIGHT and SECOND RIGHT also include an exit number so you'd get signs saying...
"EXIT 2A/HP Pavilion/NEXT RIGHT" and
"EXIT 2B/Santa Clara University/SECOND RIGHT"
In fact Caltrans calls these types of roadside signs Supplemental Destination signs and have their own CA sign code (G86-12 and G86-13). In addition to NEXT RIGHT, the following are also acceptable... NEXT EXIT, NEXT LEFT, SECOND RIGHT and SECOND LEFT.
As per the 2009 edition of the MUTCD (Section 2E-36) a "diagonally upward pointing arrow" is required on the "exit direction" sign. This is the sign that normally appears at the beginning of the deceleration lane or overhead at the split. There apparently is no provision for the words "next right" to be on an exit direction sign. However, if I remember right, older editions back in the 1970's did allow that wording if visibility was such that the exit alignment was not readily visible to approaching drivers. Though it does not appear in my old 1988 Manual.
Re: supplemental guide signs. This is the sign showing additional destinations that may appear between the advance guide sign and the exit direction sign. The Manual recommends ("should" vs. "shall") but doesn't require that the exit number be shown under the destination served. It allows the words "next right" on these signs only on highways without exit numbering.
"NEXT RIGHT" instead of an arrow on exit direction signs, while now (and IMO rightly) strongly deprecated, is actually an old CDOT heirloom. My guess is that the designer either messed up his or her time machine, or worked from construction plans two sign replacements ago.
The only things I can't stand is old BGS signs. And when I mean old, I literally mean it. X-( The most notorious example is SR 8 Northbound. These signs are in dire need of replacement, especially due to the fact that it now has exit numbers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4139%2F5037669060_3619b746af_b.jpg&hash=18244b43debce0ac190e0d8d760fec01aafa9be4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4148%2F5037669294_1d30abc050_b.jpg&hash=63535d7b70915f6b9ee9a839b5cce52ea370210b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4108%2F5037051779_d26dda3c66_b.jpg&hash=75d70b443d8c0df7aef3c9bbe2a7618190264621)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4134%2F5037669730_52c72d8bd9_b.jpg&hash=a3ffb9bf28fe319e057655caa03bf3173f202062)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4151%2F5037670140_962b354080_b.jpg&hash=a33f73ea29a7f87f8d90dd3dca74d0f167fd66b2)
The most infuriating part is the fourth photo; it has a new sign bridge, but two of the three signs that are all faded and such were just slapped on rather than replacing it. :thumbdown:
I for one am going to violently disagree. Old green signs preserve history.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i1.jpg)
QuoteOver the last week C-DOT has replaced a couple of "perfectly good" BGSs along I-70 just west of Glenwood Springs.
The good news was that they were not replaced by Clearviews.
*sigh* Really? Colorado Springs is still playing with the neutered signage on I-25 left over from the Great Route Switch of 2008. Buncha BGSs with bunged on green tape over the state shields (or at least big blank spaces) and directionals. Plus, the whole cantilever arm for the westbound US 24 exit heading northbound has been missing since the end of COSMIX in 2007.
Bah! Bah, I say! Where's the equality? :biggrin:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 09:44:21 PM
I for one am going to violently disagree. Old green signs preserve history.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i1.jpg)
Why are the arrows patched up?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 29, 2010, 04:04:57 AM
Why are the arrows patched up?
the original standard was to have downward arrows all the way, but a federal standard (I believe 1961 but would have to double-check) dictated "up and away" arrows at the gore point where the roads finally divide. this is the gore point gantry, so it was patched. previous gantries along the approach (all brand new retroreflective, btw - amazing that this sign survived the reconstruction) are all double down-arrow for the two lanes that become 60.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 09:44:21 PM
Old green signs preserve history.
That may be so, but at the very least, ODOT should slap in the exit tabs.
If you think that's old...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbEURNHtI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FHtuACv2RzT0%2Fs640%2F100_4087.JPG&hash=80f481af3753d6f2c2a21e5de3af3b6bb6f46f0f)
I think the US-60 sign may be a tad older than that. 1960 date stamp on the back. the 15/220 gantry may very well be as old as 1957, but I think it's mid-60s.
On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?
And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 29, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?
And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.
US-60.
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2010, 05:36:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 29, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?
And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.
US-60.
Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers. US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates. Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399. There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.
oh god you didn't just say f***ral route did you
is that why your post got edited
please say you didn't say fed***l route
He who shall not be named...
Quote from: deanej on December 29, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbEURNHtI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FHtuACv2RzT0%2Fs640%2F100_4087.JPG&hash=80f481af3753d6f2c2a21e5de3af3b6bb6f46f0f)
When did they made that? :wow:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 09:44:21 PM
I for one am going to violently disagree. Old green signs preserve history.
Agreed. If there's one thing California's good at, it's preserving signs. Driving I-15, I-10, and US-101 up to San Jose really convinced me that there is value in maintaining old button-copy signs (driving 101 around Santa Barbara's now my favorite partly because of this). If anything, my pet peeve is BGSs in Utah usually having a twenty-year shelf life before they are pasted over with a brand new sign. The only consolation is that the old 1960s signs exist beneath the newer signs (you can see the backs of the old signs easily at the I-80/I-215/SR-186 interchange that has the famous still-surviving Salt Lake button-copy assembly).
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 29, 2010, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2010, 05:36:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 29, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?
And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.
US-60.
Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers. US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates. Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399. There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.
CA 6?! US 6 still exists in CA, it terminates at US 395 in Bishop. The remnants of US 6 were replaced by CA 14, I-5 & CA 11 (CA 110/I-110).
Quote from: ausinterkid on December 29, 2010, 10:07:27 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 29, 2010, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 29, 2010, 05:36:09 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 29, 2010, 05:26:27 PM
On that Riverside sign, the "60" is obviously also a patch covering a U.S. route shield. What US route was it originally?
And I agree those 15/220 signs look like mid-60's. That was the wording in New York in that era, in lieu of route shields.
US-60.
Yeah, usually California replaces decommed U.S. highways with the same number if they can, since they don't like to have duplicate numbers. US-80 (due to I-80) and US-40 (due to I-40) didn't get state routes with the same number due to the Interstates. Some exceptions are US-466, US-70, and US-399. There is a CA-66, CA-91, CA-99, CA-299, CA-6, etc.
CA 6?! US 6 still exists in CA, it terminates at US 395 in Bishop. The remnants of US 6 were replaced by CA 14, I-5 & CA 11 (CA 110/I-110).
I could be wrong about this, but I do believe that CalTRANS maintains routes within the state in such a way that everything is a "state route." Thus, I-5 is also CA-5, etc. For example, with I-238, it's a non-chargeable Interstate and thus could have remained CA-238, because that's how it's still maintained, despite the Interstate notation.
I have no idea if that makes any sense at all...
Quote from: Quillz on December 29, 2010, 10:25:00 PM
I could be wrong about this, but I do believe that CalTRANS maintains routes within the state in such a way that everything is a "state route." Thus, I-5 is also CA-5, etc. For example, with I-238, it's a non-chargeable Interstate and thus could have remained CA-238, because that's how it's still maintained, despite the Interstate notation.
I have no idea if that makes any sense at all...
That's what Utah does. Every road under state jurisdiction is defined in the state legislature as a state route - whether or not it's an interstate or U.S. highway - so UDOT route logs will sometimes refer to SR-15, SR-80, SR-89, etc when in reality they're I-15, I-80, US-89. It all has to do with the fact that the state legislature codifies the routes under law as such, though I'm not sure that's what California does.
[Removed errant quote tag. -S.]
Quote from: CL on December 29, 2010, 10:33:57 PM
so UDOT route logs will sometimes refer to SR-15, SR-80, SR-89, etc when in reality they're I-15, I-80, US-89. It all has to do with the fact that the state legislature codifies the routes under law as such, though I'm not sure that's what California does.
Actually, that's exactly what California does - i.e. I-15 and Route 15 are not at all considered two separate routes, but as one unified number (same with I-110/Route 110, I-210/Route 110 et al.).
The first one - though never built - was the planned Route 380 between I-280 in San Bruno and Route 1 in Pacifica, proposed in the 1960s.
Quote from: deanej on December 29, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
If you think that's old...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbEURNHtI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FHtuACv2RzT0%2Fs640%2F100_4087.JPG&hash=80f481af3753d6f2c2a21e5de3af3b6bb6f46f0f)
They are doing some rehab work in that area this winter/spring. I wouldn't be surprised to see these replaced in the next 6 months or so.
Glad I got through there when I did then.
I saw those signs last Thursday. Unfortunately, it was night so I couldn't get a picture.
I'm sure the US 220 SOUTH sign will have a blank space for I-99.
I'll be sad to see it go... :angry:
Fortunately, these were still around in Bloomsburg...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2493%2F4230097505_a17a388a73.jpg&hash=f94dc2ddbf3249f310a5c98a4235d4b02c1c9d72) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4230097505/)
20091227 I-80 WB @ Exit 241-8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4230097505/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2702%2F4219870259_e4da5e5a70.jpg&hash=3b07c1d60a4e939418efa6c5fcd84d8ca495b4d9) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4219870259/)
20091227 US11 N @ I-80 - 4 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4219870259/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4061%2F4642559587_ee1f9b093d.jpg&hash=d6b5bf89263e6ddc7fb7f42ac75b4a430d8768be) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4642559587/)
20100102 US11 S @ I-80 - 1C2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4642559587/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr
Alas, this one is no more:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4039%2F4643299994_7b473a9dc9.jpg&hash=2cc7849a75e46516c3f1aa5a8aa75b51c1c06af2) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4643299994/)
20100102 I-80 WB @ Exit 232-6C (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace/4643299994/) by mightyace (http://www.flickr.com/people/mightyace/), on Flickr
those are some great 1961-spec I-80 shields! too bad the US routes were spelled out.
some signs of similar vintage exist on the Doylestown bypass, identifying US-611 to this day.
^^^
AFAIK They are the surviving original signs at the I-80/US 11 interchange.
I can see in the first pic it used to be "Exit 36," now it's Exit 241. I assume 36 came from sequential numbering?
Quote from: Quillz on January 05, 2011, 03:15:50 PM
I can see in the first pic it used to be "Exit 36," now it's Exit 241. I assume 36 came from sequential numbering?
Yes. Pennsylvania switched to mileage-based about ten years ago. Most exit signs (at least in the Philadelphia area) still have "old exit X" tabs on them; I wonder when they'll stop showing those.
Quote from: deanej on December 29, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
If you think that's old...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbEURNHtI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FHtuACv2RzT0%2Fs640%2F100_4087.JPG&hash=80f481af3753d6f2c2a21e5de3af3b6bb6f46f0f)
I kind of like that type of signage. I-180 has that type for its full length.
For those who will miss that sign bridge when I-99 comes through, here's an option:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmjr1990.webng.com%2FAARoads%2FUS%252015%2520South%2520At%2520Fourth%2520Street%2520-%2520Williamsport%2C%2520PA%2520%28I-99%29.png&hash=5703be5ec49f5e283f70804a194b466695e1d0b2) (http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/US%2015%20South%20At%20Fourth%20Street%20-%20Williamsport,%20PA%20(I-99).png)
(click image for a full size version)
I just think it works better with a graphical shield. When I see text, I generally want to assume it's a street name. I want important numbered highways to stand out visually.
Nice creations Michael, however on an authentic PA button copy sign, Interstate 99 would not be spelled out, it'd be a button copy shield as seen in mightyace's photos. :thumbsup:
In an ideal world, those signs in Pennsylvania would say Interstate 980, not Interstate 99.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on January 05, 2011, 06:51:54 PM
Nice creations Michael, however on an authentic PA button copy sign, Interstate 99 would not be spelled out, it'd be a button copy shield as seen in mightyace's photos. :thumbsup:
I just looked at the photos you mentioned, and noticed that U.S. routes are all text, and Interstate routes have a shield. Any reason why? The only thing I can think of is that "Interstate" takes up a lot of space compared to "U.S.".
Wild speculation, but, given the importance of the Interstate 'brand', is it possible the logic at the time was that if the shield was the most visible component then people would head that way?
The Interstate shield is, after all, particularly iconic and it is the only part of those 60s-era BGS that really sticks out. I noticed the "80" shield well before the word "Hazelton". With the text only signs, it is harder to take in the information - which is why in the UK, major route numbers are in either a different typeface (on motorways) or in gold lettering (primary routes). It falls down on minor roads where the number is the same colour and typeface as the rest of the text (and is harder to locate).
Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 03:46:00 PM
I kind of like that type of signage. I-180 has that type for its full length.
Not anymore it doesn't. I-180 must have just had its signage replaced by the time I went on it, because it now has this type of signange (for those that don't like Clearview, LOOK AWAY):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbFqVodKI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FxGCHnK6-02w%2Fs640%2F100_4089.JPG&hash=0af6c5049e1e834f3ab7a5b73f8d25e82b9e800a)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 28, 2010, 09:44:21 PM
I for one am going to violently disagree. Old green signs preserve history.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580103i1.jpg)
What is that CA 60 patch hiding?
I agree with Jake to some degree: old signs preserve history , though they need to be maintained.
Quote from: Michael on January 06, 2011, 07:54:02 AMI just looked at the photos you mentioned, and noticed that U.S. routes are all text, and Interstate routes have a shield. Any reason why? The only thing I can think of is that "Interstate" takes up a lot of space compared to "U.S.".
I don't think there was necessarily a reason as such. I think it was simply a matter of preference on the part of the signs design team in Harrisburg which, until the 1980's (so I am told), handled guide sign design for all PennDOT districts. PennDOT has long had standard plan sheets for US and state route shields on freeway guide signs, but for a long period of time (about two decades, based on the signing plan sheets I have managed to find), US and state route designations appeared in text only. It becomes easier to find US and state route shields on guide signs toward the late 1970's and early 1980's, around the time standard plan sheets started calling for reflectorized shields, the Harrisburg design unit was broken up, and guide sign design was downloaded to PennDOT districts (with an immediate and steep fall in the quality of plans produced).
I think an underlying motivation for this preference might have been avoiding button copy (or button reflectorization in general) for letters and digits appearing in negative contrast. The Interstate shield is not a problem since the digits appear in positive contrast, but both the Pennsylvania and US traffic route markers have black digits on white background. This may also be the reason Pennsylvania was comparatively slow to adopt yellow-background "LEFT EXIT" and "EXIT ONLY" signing. It is certainly true, again based on my plan sheet collection, that text designations are correlated with the use of standard plan sheets calling for porcelain enamel US and state route shields (no whole-surface reflectorization) with reflective buttons in digits and border. Much later this changed temporarily to whole-surface reflectorization with opaque black border and digits. Eventually the black border was dropped and PennDOT guide sign shields assumed their present form.
Incidentally, the rule has traditionally been that the system designator ("US" or "PA" in this case) has to be centered vertically on the route number. Typical sizes are as follows:
* Rural area (ground-mounted): 15" system designator, 18" route number, 20" uppercase/15" lowercase primary legend
* Overhead: 10" or 12" system designator, 15" route number, 16" uppercase/12" lowercase primary legend
Series D is traditional, but there are numerous examples (as on several plan sheets and on the assembly in Mightyace's photo) where Series E Modified has been used instead.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2011, 10:59:47 AM
Quote from: Michael on January 06, 2011, 07:54:02 AMI just looked at the photos you mentioned, and noticed that U.S. routes are all text, and Interstate routes have a shield. Any reason why? The only thing I can think of is that "Interstate" takes up a lot of space compared to "U.S.".
I don't think there was necessarily a reason as such. I think it was simply a matter of preference on the part of the signs design team in Harrisburg which, until the 1980's (so I am told), handled guide sign design for all PennDOT districts. PennDOT has long had standard plan sheets for US and state route shields on freeway guide signs, but for a long period of time (about two decades, based on the signing plan sheets I have managed to find), US and state route designations appeared in text only. It becomes easier to find US and state route shields on guide signs toward the late 1970's and early 1980's, around the time standard plan sheets started calling for reflectorized shields, the Harrisburg design unit was broken up, and guide sign design was downloaded to PennDOT districts (with an immediate and steep fall in the quality of plans produced).
Having grown up around text-based signs, I used to think they were a standard. New York certainly followed the Penndot guidelines for state, and sometimes U.S. highways, written in text:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york390/ny-390_nb_exit_024a_04.jpg)
Also I have a memory or two of freeway mileage signs in the Carolinas where the state highways referenced on guide signs would simply display "S C XXX".
Quote from: deanej on January 06, 2011, 09:10:24 AM
Not anymore it doesn't. I-180 must have just had its signage replaced by the time I went on it, because it now has this type of signange (for those that don't like Clearview, LOOK AWAY):
[180/220/15]
good heavens, who shat out that US-15 shield?? the 220 is pretty bad, too.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: deanej on January 06, 2011, 09:10:24 AM
Not anymore it doesn't. I-180 must have just had its signage replaced by the time I went on it, because it now has this type of signange (for those that don't like Clearview, LOOK AWAY):
[180/220/15]
good heavens, who shat out that US-15 shield?? the 220 is pretty bad, too.
I've seen quite a few US-15 signs that look like that - near Williamsport as well as on the Susquehanna Trail between Harrisburg and Lewisburg.
[Fixed quoting. Always put your reply at the very bottom of the text box, below the last [/quote] tag. -S.]
Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 03:46:00 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbFqVodKI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FxGCHnK6-02w%2Fs640%2F100_4089.JPG&hash=0af6c5049e1e834f3ab7a5b73f8d25e82b9e800a)
If they're gonna Clearview the sign, why not go all the way? (I'm not talking about the route numbers-those are fine.) "KEEP LEFT", the exit & number tab, "1/2 MILE", and the cardinal directions look like FHWA Series E to me.
I actually don't mind the mix-and-match approach on those that much. Neither all-caps Clearview nor its digits are very compelling to me.
Quote from: AARoads on January 06, 2011, 11:07:42 AMHaving grown up around text-based signs, I used to think they were a standard. New York certainly followed the Penndot guidelines for state, and sometimes U.S. highways, written in text:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york390/ny-390_nb_exit_024a_04.jpg)
They were, in fact, a standard. The
MUTCD used to provide minimum heights for text designations on freeway guide signs according to type class. I think (haven't checked) that it was just in the last revision cycle that FHWA threw text designations on advance guide and exit direction signs out the back of the bus. Since the
MUTCD now has minimum retroreflectivity requirements and the states are universally using whole-surface retroreflectorization for all new guide signing, there is no longer a need to provide for text designations as a way of avoiding negative-contrast button copy.
QuoteAlso I have a memory or two of freeway mileage signs in the Carolinas where the state highways referenced on guide signs would simply display "S C XXX".
This is a very common standard, including in states, like Kansas, with no history of using button copy. (Kansas will use shields on interchange sequence signs, but not on post-interchange distance signs. Arizona, on the other hand, now uses shields both on interchange sequence signs and post-interchange distance signs.) I do not at the moment remember whether the
MUTCD has eliminated text designations on post-interchange distance signs.
Quote from: US71 on January 06, 2011, 09:35:14 AM
What is that CA 60 patch hiding?
I'm assuming it used to say US 60.
Quote from: burgess87 on January 06, 2011, 11:23:57 AM
Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 03:46:00 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbFqVodKI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FxGCHnK6-02w%2Fs640%2F100_4089.JPG&hash=0af6c5049e1e834f3ab7a5b73f8d25e82b9e800a)
If they're gonna Clearview the sign, why not go all the way? (I'm not talking about the route numbers-those are fine.) "KEEP LEFT", the exit & number tab, "1/2 MILE", and the cardinal directions look like FHWA Series E to me.
Not sure why it wasn't used for the things you mentioned, but I do know Clearview is not yet approved for negative contrast (dark text against a light or dark background), so the "EXIT ONLY" portion could not yet be in Clearview.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 06, 2011, 11:28:06 AM
I actually don't mind the mix-and-match approach on those that much. Neither all-caps Clearview nor its digits are very compelling to me.
The whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2011, 12:46:25 PM
They were, in fact, a standard. The MUTCD used to provide minimum heights for text designations on freeway guide signs according to type class. I think (haven't checked) that it was just in the last revision cycle that FHWA threw text designations on advance guide and exit direction signs out the back of the bus. Since the MUTCD now has minimum retroreflectivity requirements and the states are universally using whole-surface retroreflectorization for all new guide signing, there is no longer a need to provide for text designations as a way of avoiding negative-contrast button copy.
I thought it was just a space-saving measure. Spelled out routes take up less height than shields.
my 1957 AASHO interstate manual shows both styles as being permissible, but does not clarify which one to use in which situation. I'll have to check my 1961 MUTCD to see if that says anything.
Quote from: AARoads on January 06, 2011, 11:07:42 AMAlso I have a memory or two of freeway mileage signs in the Carolinas where the state highways referenced on guide signs would simply display "S C XXX".
To the best of my knowledge, Georgia still does this in the relatively rare cases where they reference highways on mileage signs.
Quote from: AARoads on January 06, 2011, 11:07:42 AM
Also I have a memory or two of freeway mileage signs in the Carolinas where the state highways referenced on guide signs would simply display "S C XXX".
There are a few on I-95 in South Carolina...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS8txf6gG7oI%2FAAAAAAAAZtQ%2Fz0nNX63H-80%2Fs640%2FIMG_2962.JPG&hash=da22e55a0e629124541e5525d13b77657e56ad19)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS8t5ChnrtuI%2FAAAAAAAAZtQ%2FRTf9NF2gjxg%2Fs640%2FIMG_4995.JPG&hash=233ba5279d29a50d8e19981853e03437181147ac)
Quote from: Quillz on January 06, 2011, 01:39:15 PM
The whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
Never?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Fforum_img%2F035i_103_emerg_cv.jpg&hash=9c58d2ee735559710bf670fa2ca72c850c8b806a)
Someone might want to clue ODOT in...
I almost missed an exit in Columbia last week because SC barely marked I-126!
The advanced signage only says "Downtown" with no mention of the highway number:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fsouth_carolina001%2Fi-026_eb_exit_107a_03.jpg&hash=eea0c5eae324998b0a9e6fc8e49f4b8e194e70eb)
It's not until close to the exit that 126 is even mentioned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fsouth_carolina001%2Fi-026_eb_exit_108_01.jpg&hash=fbd4d9029f167fbc67a5489bccda9992e8c89470)
It was dark out. I had been driving for over 13 hours and traffic was surprisingly heavy. I was tired and anxious to get to the hotel. I almost missed the exit because I was scanning the signs for a red and blue I-126 shield! There wasn't a single one.
And thanks to aaroads for letting me steal the images :)
Route I-126, that's a new one.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 06, 2011, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 06, 2011, 01:39:15 PM
The whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
Never?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Fforum_img%2F035i_103_emerg_cv.jpg&hash=9c58d2ee735559710bf670fa2ca72c850c8b806a)
Someone might want to clue ODOT in...
Well, I suppose it can exist but it's pointless. I think in usability studies, all-caps Clearview was actually less legible than comparable all-caps Series E(M). Clearview was designed to be mixed-case and that's how all signs that use the typeface should do it.
I-56 runs through Boise City, Oklahoma! An ODOT signing plan says so!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
good heavens, who shat out that US-15 shield?? the 220 is pretty bad, too.
I've seen quite a few shields on guide signs in Pennsylvania that look like that. US 30's exit on I-81 is one example, and I've seen more than a few US 19 shields that look similar
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2011, 11:19:07 PM
I-56 runs through Boise City, Oklahoma! An ODOT signing plan says so!
And at various points in time, California has had Interstates 1, 50, 99 and 101.
I-99 was in California? When and where? It's currently in Pennsylvania. What happened to the original standardized Interstate numbering system?
Quote from: SignBridge on January 07, 2011, 10:16:34 AM
I-99 was in California? When and where? It's currently in Pennsylvania. What happened to the original standardized Interstate numbering system?
Those were sign goofs made by contractors or Caltrans.
I-99 -> CA-99
I-1 -> CA-1
I-101 -> US 101
I-50 -> US 50
Quote from: SignBridge on January 07, 2011, 10:16:34 AM
I-99 was in California? When and where? It's currently in Pennsylvania. What happened to the original standardized Interstate numbering system?
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post. And I'm sure there's been more, too. Many local businesses around where I live draw very generic, simplified maps showing where they are, and they usually use the Interstate shield to represent any numbered route. That means that I've seen Interstates 27, 118, 134 and 2.
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:39:05 PM
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post. And I'm sure there's been more, too. Many local businesses around where I live draw very generic, simplified maps showing where they are, and they usually use the Interstate shield to represent any numbered route. That means that I've seen Interstates 27, 118, 134 and 2.
oddly, we have a map here at work in San Diego, showing the nearest hospital, and it shows US-5, US-805, and US-52. Not bad for a city with no surviving US routes!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:39:05 PM
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post. And I'm sure there's been more, too. Many local businesses around where I live draw very generic, simplified maps showing where they are, and they usually use the Interstate shield to represent any numbered route. That means that I've seen Interstates 27, 118, 134 and 2.
oddly, we have a map here at work in San Diego, showing the nearest hospital, and it shows US-5, US-805, and US-52. Not bad for a city with no surviving US routes!
Not only does Interstate 54 run through San Diego, it even has its own Business Route!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FCA19610541i1.jpg&hash=f6ee44bf70143cf914506a45113da5b30afa7f0d) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/CA19610541i1.jpg")
Quote from: realjd on January 06, 2011, 08:08:34 PM
I almost missed an exit in Columbia last week because SC barely marked I-126!
The advanced signage only says "Downtown" with no mention of the highway number:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fsouth_carolina001%2Fi-026_eb_exit_107a_03.jpg&hash=eea0c5eae324998b0a9e6fc8e49f4b8e194e70eb)
It's not until close to the exit that 126 is even mentioned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fsouth_carolina001%2Fi-026_eb_exit_108_01.jpg&hash=fbd4d9029f167fbc67a5489bccda9992e8c89470)
It was dark out. I had been driving for over 13 hours and traffic was surprisingly heavy. I was tired and anxious to get to the hotel. I almost missed the exit because I was scanning the signs for a red and blue I-126 shield! There wasn't a single one.
And thanks to aaroads for letting me steal the images :)
Now that I'm a Columbia-area resident, those signs are going to be a thorn in my side until they replace them. At least the westbound I-26 signage for I-126 uses shields...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 06, 2011, 01:50:18 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2011, 12:46:25 PMThey were, in fact, a standard. The MUTCD used to provide minimum heights for text designations on freeway guide signs according to type class. I think (haven't checked) that it was just in the last revision cycle that FHWA threw text designations on advance guide and exit direction signs out the back of the bus. Since the MUTCD now has minimum retroreflectivity requirements and the states are universally using whole-surface retroreflectorization for all new guide signing, there is no longer a need to provide for text designations as a way of avoiding negative-contrast button copy.
I thought it was just a space-saving measure. Spelled out routes take up less height than shields.
It does save space, but I don't think that was the motivation in Pennsylvania. PennDOT (& predecessor agency) never did text designations with Interstates--only US and Pennsylvania traffic routes. Moreover, PennDOT began using shields for US and Pennsylvania routes once the standard plan sheets started showing retroreflectorized white shields. It would be interesting to see if Pennsylvania ever tried outline US and Pennsylvania state route shields during the relatively brief period of time when they were allowed; I don't have any signing plan sheets which address this point.
Quotemy 1957 AASHO interstate manual shows both styles as being permissible, but does not clarify which one to use in which situation. I'll have to check my 1961 MUTCD to see if that says anything.
For US and state routes at the very least, and possibly also the Interstates, I think it was left to state discretion.
QuoteThe whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
You haven't spent much time in Arizona or Wyoming, have you?
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 08:19:07 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 07, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:39:05 PM
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post. And I'm sure there's been more, too. Many local businesses around where I live draw very generic, simplified maps showing where they are, and they usually use the Interstate shield to represent any numbered route. That means that I've seen Interstates 27, 118, 134 and 2.
oddly, we have a map here at work in San Diego, showing the nearest hospital, and it shows US-5, US-805, and US-52. Not bad for a city with no surviving US routes!
Not only does Interstate 54 run through San Diego, it even has its own Business Route!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picdrop.net%2Fuploads%2FCA19610541i1.jpg&hash=f6ee44bf70143cf914506a45113da5b30afa7f0d) (http://"http://www.picdrop.net/pictures/CA19610541i1.jpg")
I plan to be out that way fairly soon, where might I find such a contraption? Feel free to private message me if you don't want word to get out.
That's from the Shield Gallery, it's not my pic, but I'd imagine it's on one of the roads that junction with CA-54.
Quote from: corco on January 08, 2011, 11:24:01 AM
QuoteThe whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
You haven't spent much time in Arizona or Wyoming, have you?
Not too much time, no. But if those states use all-caps Clearview, then they are doing it wrong. Clearview was supposed to be used in mixed-case scenarios. I believe Series E(M) is actually more legible than Clearview when both are in all-caps, and only when dealing with positive contrast signs. The very specific usage of Clearview to gets its benefits is likely a big reason why it's still only allowed on an interim basis.
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:39:05 PM
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post.
Been along U.S. 1 in New York City? There is a 3di Interstate shield saying "INTERSTATE US1" somewhere.
Quote from: Quillz on January 08, 2011, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: corco on January 08, 2011, 11:24:01 AM
QuoteThe whole purpose of Clearview is that it's mixed case. That's when its improved legibility comes into play. You will never see all-caps Clearview simply because there is no purpose to it.
You haven't spent much time in Arizona or Wyoming, have you?
Not too much time, no. But if those states use all-caps Clearview, then they are doing it wrong. Clearview was supposed to be used in mixed-case scenarios. I believe Series E(M) is actually more legible than Clearview when both are in all-caps, and only when dealing with positive contrast signs. The very specific usage of Clearview to gets its benefits is likely a big reason why it's still only allowed on an interim basis.
Arizona uses it very extensively from what I have seen, with Wyoming using it fairly sporadically (in quick search I can't even find any). I total agree that upper-case Clearview looks weird, but there it is anyway.
Here's some ducks for your jolly:*
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fduck1.jpg&hash=cce15a29d0f9e68441291753db107acc56d21686)
(on the 60 east of Mesa)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fduck2.jpg&hash=d9781e06b19e9f2256ea0a6dcb18dd6510ada8f5)
(on SR 287 at I-10)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fduck3.jpg&hash=2cdc022902508f9ce21280e2d512b7c29cd41976)
(on I-10 at the 101)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fduck4.jpg&hash=4ddb863ce9b4b7cd60b61d98a301c49726d39364)
(in an ADOT yard off the 10 in Goodyear)
Not that I advocate it, but it is out there.
*I'm no font expert, so if I'm wrong and this isn't Clearview I'll eat my hat
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 08, 2011, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: Quillz on January 07, 2011, 03:39:05 PM
Error shields, as mentioned in the previous post.
Been along U.S. 1 in New York City? There is a 3di Interstate shield saying "INTERSTATE US1" somewhere.
Gun Hill Rd. I don't recommend going there alone or at night.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 07, 2011, 11:55:56 PMIt would be interesting to see if Pennsylvania ever tried outline US and Pennsylvania state route shields during the relatively brief period of time when they were allowed
"relatively brief" is anything from the dawn of signage up to 1961. A lot of the times, the "outline shield" turned out to be white with black legend anyway, so it didn't really count, but when states started using colored signage (black, green, what have you) the outline shield was the first thing defaulted to.
and, for Penna:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/PA/PA19590011i1.jpg)
Quote from: Michael on January 05, 2011, 03:46:00 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 29, 2010, 12:46:26 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_6zDqXUkKvc0%2FTRKbEURNHtI%2FAAAAAAAAF2s%2FHtuACv2RzT0%2Fs640%2F100_4087.JPG&hash=80f481af3753d6f2c2a21e5de3af3b6bb6f46f0f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmjr1990.webng.com%2FAARoads%2FUS%252015%2520South%2520At%2520Fourth%2520Street%2520-%2520Williamsport%2C%2520PA%2520%28I-99%29.png&hash=5703be5ec49f5e283f70804a194b466695e1d0b2) (http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/US%2015%20South%20At%20Fourth%20Street%20-%20Williamsport,%20PA%20(I-99).png)
(click image for a full size version)
Or better yet, this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg831.imageshack.us%2Fimg831%2F4632%2Fus220aaroads.png&hash=994140f5e70c26a54c7f3efa2683c8c3093ba2cd)
Well that totally nukes the uniqueness of that sign assembly :ded:
Still needs an exit tab for Fourth St too.
PA would probably put the "South" above the I-99/US220 assembly in the second drawing.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 07, 2011, 11:55:56 PMIt would be interesting to see if Pennsylvania ever tried outline US and Pennsylvania state route shields during the relatively brief period of time when they were allowed; I don't have any signing plan sheets which address this point.
The old signage for the Saw Mill Run Boulevard/Banksville Road interchange on then I-279 northbound, which was replaced in the early-mid 2000s, had outlined US and PA shields.
Quote from: LeftyJR on January 10, 2011, 08:43:46 AMPA would probably put the "South" above the I-99/US220 assembly in the second drawing.
The cardinal directions are above the shields on the guides at the trumpet in Duncansville (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Altoona,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.38984,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Altoona,+Blair,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.439108,-78.43116&spn=0.007594,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.439041,-78.431079&panoid=GwzFDrXbfMX3paTeKXEnjA&cbp=12,137.03,,0,-23.53). District 11 just eliminates the clutter by just having the Interstate on the main guide, and only mentioning the multiplexed routes to an auxiliary sign with "[route(s)] [direction] FOLLOW [Interstate] [direction]."