(If you want, move this to the "Member Albums" board.)
Just some I saw yesterday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_AXtC_YsMww4%2FTSoHivRIrsI%2FAAAAAAAAAtY%2FyNtnlGhyK5A%2Fs912%2FSAM_0338.JPG&hash=e8d42b52f74d6f9c5671cf3e91e3ce3de55aad0a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.ggpht.com%2F_AXtC_YsMww4%2FTSoIWU6rkGI%2FAAAAAAAAAvo%2F6LYrHMl7Yg8%2Fs912%2FSAM_0383.JPG&hash=dfb928d26b16ff76f5eaa407b57f9db41ac4499e)
Both were on I-94 in SE Michigan.
What was the rationale for underlining cardinal directions?
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 10, 2011, 09:54:40 PM
What was the rationale for underlining cardinal directions?
All I know is that it can only be found on older FHWA font signs in Michigan. MDOT Clearview signs don't have underlined cardinal directions!
I always thought the underlining was cool, and it was different, neat & linear.
This was also practiced in Ontario. Cardinal directions were underlined (English) then overlined (French).
If there are pictures available of I-91 in VT, there were (hopefully still are) BGS signs with underlined cardinal directions, in button copy.
QuoteIf there are pictures available of I-91 in VT, there were (hopefully still are) BGS signs with underlined cardinal directions, in button copy.
The only place these MIGHT still exist is near Brattleboro. I know none exist between Springfield and Lyndonville, and all guide signage north of Lyndonville was replaced last year.
Quote from: juscuz410 on January 12, 2011, 11:24:56 AM
This was also practiced in Ontario. Cardinal directions were underlined (English) then overlined (French).
That's ironic as Michigan shares it's border with Ontario.
Before switching to Clearview, the underlining was a standard Michigan practice. Too bad none of the Clearview signs I saw had underlined cardinal directions.
Quote from: MDOTFanFB on January 12, 2011, 02:36:45 PM
That's ironic as Michigan shares it's border with Ontario.
No it's not. Not even in the weakened sense that grammar prescriptivists hate.
VT 62: www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/i-89/62on.jpg
I-93 in VT, the aforementioned button copy: www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/i-91/93n.jpg www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/i-91/93end.jpg (taken by Doug K. and Lou C.)
Old US 16, Lansing: www.alpsroads.net/roads/mi/i-96/16e.jpg
A different message, I-96: www.alpsroads.net/roads/mi/i-96/esplit.jpg
Please keep in mind - COPY and PASTE the links into your browser, clicking is useless.
Not sure about the VT 62 signs (haven't been in Barre in awhile), but the I-93 signs have since been replaced and are neither button copy nor have underlined cardinal directions.
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-091_sb_at_i-093.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-091_sb_at_i-093.jpg)
And Interstate 91 south at Interstate 93 used to have an example.
Assuming both signs in the last picture were installed together why is only the one underlined?
Quote from: Truvelo on January 13, 2011, 02:09:27 PM
Assuming both signs in the last picture were installed together why is only the one underlined?
Doesn't seem like it - the right sign is laid out completely differently. Also, I thought VT didn't number Interstate-Interstate junctions.
QuoteDoesn't seem like it - the right sign is laid out completely differently. Also, I thought VT didn't number Interstate-Interstate junctions.
They do along I-91 (and have for over 2 decades). And also on I-89 at I-189. There was a thread on the subject some months back.
I tried to dig up some additional information on the practice of underlining cardinal direction words and have been moderately successful. It turns out that Michigan DOT's formal name for the underlining is "divider bar" and so I shall use that term hereinafter.
First, I pulled my print copy of the 1994 MMUTCD off the shelf. It does not explicitly mention divider bars in either Chapters 2E or 2F (expressways and freeways respectively--before FHWA's millennium edition of the national MUTCD, these were treated in separate chapters). However, Chapter 2E is more Michigan-focused than Chapter 2F and has numerous Michigan-specific sign drawings with divider bars. There are no details of dimensions for them, however.
Then I (cough, cough) resorted to an information source and managed to find a set of construction plans for an old job in Washtenaw County which had contemporary standard plan sheets for signing. The title sheet signature dates are all from early April 1975. In contradistinction to its current practice of providing pattern-accurate and fully dimensioned sign designs (generally produced in SignCAD) in the plan sheets or (less commonly) the proposal book, at the time Michigan DOT provided sign sketches showing the general layout of legend on the sign panel and contractors were expected to refer to the standard plan sheets for dimensions not actually shown in the sign sketches. From these standard plans I have learned the following:
* The divider bar is always shown as "optional" and is uniformly 2" in width.
* The divider bar is shown only in situations where a cardinal direction word is ranged horizontally to the left or right of a route shield. It is not used with cardinal direction words used next to street names, or above or below the shield. In fact, most sketches showing the divider bar present it as part of a choice between having cardinal direction word above the shield, or next to the shield with divider bar. Normally the height of the cardinal direction word is higher when a divider bar is used than when it is placed above the shield.
* The divider bar can be used with two combinations of sizes, each associated with a 36" high route marker: 18" cardinal direction word, 8" gap between bottom of word and centerline of divider bar, or alternatively 15" cardinal direction word, 7" gap.