I know people here HATE Clearview with a passion, but in north Louisiana, the LaDOTD has actually done an outstanding job with it. The route markers on the signs are in FHWA Type D, and the words are in Clearview. I call them ClearHybrids, and they work pretty well. Posting a few pictures below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbackroadinglouisiana.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fphoto-1.jpg&hash=65349cf4143f9970ae973545a3fb5d0b0a909360)
^Clearview North with FHWA 167^
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbackroadinglouisiana.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fphoto-2.jpg&hash=28941dbb7049f1660b2ce9c83971434a86917fde)
^Clearview cities, with 1/2 mile mark. Looks pretty accurate^
So the goal is to post photos where Clearview is used, and it looks pretty good. Also would like to know if there are any ClearHybrids out there!
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
Quote from: NE2 on July 13, 2012, 01:25:56 AM
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
Tell that to the same fine folks who Clearviewed I-10/I-12 in Baton Rouge. The route shields, negative contrast... everything is Clearview. Even the speed advisory signs.
It would be even better if Clearview users would follow the guidance that numerals and symbols should not be in Clearview. The same FAQ shows examples of it being done right (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q11) (exit tab and bottom line of sign in FHWA).
The photo of the new sign on I-71 in Columbus that now has the bottom line greened out in another thread is an example of very small Clearview numerals (mainly in the fractions) not doing the job well--FHWA numerals would be preferable.
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 13, 2012, 01:41:04 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 13, 2012, 01:25:56 AM
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
Tell that to the same fine folks who Clearviewed I-10/I-12 in Baton Rouge. The route shields, negative contrast... everything is Clearview. Even the speed advisory signs.
The FHWA should make them redo the offending parts of the signs at their own expense. The rules aren't that unclear or hard to follow. Negative contrast Clearview, using it in route shields, etc. shows ignorance and laziness.
I've always thought Texas did a pretty good job with their Clearview signs. they're new and feature '70 spec shields, but otherwise they look good.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 13, 2012, 10:37:16 AMI've always thought Texas did a pretty good job with their Clearview signs. they're new and feature '70 spec shields, but otherwise they look good.
Who are you and what did you do with Jake?
Even though I really dislike this font, here are some well laid out Clearview signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2375%2F5769211580_455264ed9b_z.jpg&hash=6002f2cb3c9c888d46cfc5ab92add7e483899f97)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6178%2F6189849971_d247b705f6_z.jpg&hash=eba1bfebc7bc20408a0f94e2c2bf78a8e712034d)
Quote from: NE2 on July 13, 2012, 01:25:56 AM
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
So in reading that document, am I to understand that the only time Clearview showed an improvement over the FHWA font was on mixed-case positive-contrast signs, and then the increase was 5%, and only for older drivers with failing vision, and then partly because of the use of retroreflective sheeting?
It says (again, if I'm reading correctly) that improvements over FHWA were not found with all-caps or negative-contrast signs, and that narrower versions of Clearview haven't even been tested?
I wasn't a fan of Clearview before, and now it seems like we're needlessly creating a design issue (multiple fonts) that doesn't really provide a significant benefit.
I know I may be late to the party in realizing this, I just had never seen it spelled out before.
I think most of the new signs on the I-495 portion of the Beltway are well-done. Just about all the signs have been replaced within the past year as part of the reconstruction project. I don't particularly care for the new boxy-style gantries they're using, but the signs look good.
Two samples, both taken several months ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F93a4e46d.jpg&hash=dcadba441d5dd75880941cd59454d807b20e1edb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F93e4cd67.jpg&hash=4b97550c1a10d4424c9f621c9273c0559e03672c)
Quote from: NE2 on July 13, 2012, 01:25:56 AM
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
Funny, I recognize several of the "Not Acceptable" signs shown at that link from encountering them in my day-to-day driving. :-D
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e)
If there has to be a sign that can be classified as the "best of clearview", this one has my vote. Clearview only for the control cities and FHWA font for everything else although I can't tell if "TOLL ROAD" is clearview or Series E. The sign pictured in the original post does not qualify as "best of clearview" in my book because the "1/2 MILE" is in clearview and not Series E.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 13, 2012, 11:37:14 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 13, 2012, 01:25:56 AM
That's how it's supposed to be done. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm#q3
So in reading that document, am I to understand that the only time Clearview showed an improvement over the FHWA font was on mixed-case positive-contrast signs, and then the increase was 5%, and only for older drivers with failing vision, and then partly because of the use of retroreflective sheeting?
It says (again, if I'm reading correctly) that improvements over FHWA were not found with all-caps or negative-contrast signs, and that narrower versions of Clearview haven't even been tested?
I wasn't a fan of Clearview before, and now it seems like we're needlessly creating a design issue (multiple fonts) that doesn't really provide a significant benefit.
I know I may be late to the party in realizing this, I just had never seen it spelled out before.
Where do you see that 5% figure? The interim approval letter I'm reading cites figures in the 11-16% range over a variety of scenarios.
The kerning (spacing of letters) makes a difference. The Ohio sign above is harder to read because the letters are too widely spaced.
Quote from: Special K on July 13, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
Where do you see that 5% figure? The interim approval letter I'm reading cites figures in the 11-16% range over a variety of scenarios.
The 5% value seems to come from the FAQ page linked above:
Quote
4. Q: Under what conditions can I expect to see a benefit from using Clearview?
A: The greatest improvement in legibility distance afforded by Clearview was realized by older drivers with poor vision (worse than 20/40 visual acuity) when mixed-case legends (those composed of an initial upper-case letter followed by lower-case letters) were viewed under vehicle headlamp illumination during nighttime conditions (an increase in legibility distance of approximately 5 percent for signs that are not otherwise illuminated). A like improvement was not demonstrated for other types of legends that use all upper-case lettering, such as action or distance messages or those found on standard signs.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 13, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_b.jpg&hash=44b7231f663a47c8c0d45034f95d9f98a8f4c5e3)
If there has to be a sign that can be classified as the "best of clearview", this one has my vote. Clearview only for the control cities and FHWA font for everything else although I can't tell if "TOLL ROAD" is clearview or Series E. The sign pictured in the original post does not qualify as "best of clearview" in my book because the "1/2 MILE" is in clearview and not Series E.
TOLL ROAD looks Clearview, when it probably should be FHWA since it's all caps, but overall the sign looks pretty good. I wish Ohio would do its Clearview like this if it insists on doing Clearview--FHWA lettering for all numerals and for distances. I have the feeling that a lot of jurisdictions using Clearview figure that if they paid for the license, they need to use it as much as possible!
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
Even though I really dislike this font, here are some well laid out Clearview signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2375%2F5769211580_455264ed9b_z.jpg&hash=6002f2cb3c9c888d46cfc5ab92add7e483899f97)
Exit 202 tab: Illegal use of Clearview.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e)
TOLL ROAD lettering: Illegal use of Clearview.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6178%2F6189849971_d247b705f6_z.jpg&hash=eba1bfebc7bc20408a0f94e2c2bf78a8e712034d)
Acceptable use of Clearview.
I'm conjecturing but I bet that somewhere in the PA specs it says that FHWA lettering should be used for numerals, for exit tab text, for action messages and distances--but the TOLL ROAD line doesn't fit into any of those categories and it slid by in Clearview. I'm tempted to let it slide (just this once) though because PA seems to be making the effort to use FHWA lettering when appropriate, while most other places are using Clearview in all sorts of bad places (dark text on light background, inside shields, in exit tabs, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) that PA at least seems to try to avoid.
Separate from the Clearview part but obvious in the comparison of the 3 pics is that the latest Ohio exit tabs appear very, very crowded--except the new LEFT exit tabs which are conversely ginormous. (Surprisingly, "ginormous" passes spell-check in Firefox all on its own, while "Clearview" doesn't.)
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 07:09:32 PMI'm conjecturing but I bet that somewhere in the PA specs it says that FHWA lettering should be used for numerals, for exit tab text, for action messages and distances--but the TOLL ROAD line doesn't fit into any of those categories and it slid by in Clearview. I'm tempted to let it slide (just this once) though because PA seems to be making the effort to use FHWA lettering when appropriate, while most other places are using Clearview in all sorts of bad places (dark text on light background, inside shields, in exit tabs, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) that PA at least seems to try to avoid.
If PennDOT regulates these choices of FHWA and Clearview through specifications, I am not aware of it. Practice varies by district: some use Clearview for all-uppercase legend while others don't. I have even seen PennDOT signing plans which called for Clearview digits in route markers, but I think these may very well have been caught before the signs were fabricated since I can't think offhand of any examples of PennDOT guide-sign shields with Clearview.
PTC seems to like Clearview, darn them:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftollroadsnews.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fu2%2F2012%2F1207122sign.gif&hash=5952302e9ae64d3a10032254eec1a0436b9a820b)
Maybe PennDOT is just fortunate enough to have some people who know what they are doing in the right places. :P
FWIW, the OP asked for examples of signs where Clearview looks good, not necessarily signs that comply with every nitpicky FHWA rule.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
PTC seems to like Clearview, darn them:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftollroadsnews.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fu2%2F2012%2F1207122sign.gif&hash=5952302e9ae64d3a10032254eec1a0436b9a820b)
For a while, PTC went through (or is still going through) a
Clearview Gone Wild phase where just about everything except route shields and Speed Limit/Ramp Exit Speed signs was done in Clearview; colors, all-caps be damned. Sadly, the recently-erected BGS' that were erected for PA 72 (Exit 266) is all Clearview except the PA 72 shield.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
Maybe PennDOT is just fortunate enough to have some people who know what they are doing in the right places. :P
You spoke a tad too soon. The recently-replaced BGS for Exit 16A (I-76 East/PA 23) off I-476 North features Clearview on the Exit tab as well as the control destinations. I'm not 100% sure, but I will have to recheck to see if Clearview was also used on the cardinal (EAST) as well. PennDOT's done that on some other BGS' as well.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2012, 07:49:48 PM
FWIW, the OP asked for examples of signs where Clearview looks good, not necessarily signs that comply with every nitpicky FHWA rule.
Then I will reiterate, the sign that has the Clearview fraction is *not* a "best of Clearview" because Clearview numerals are ugly!
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 13, 2012, 09:11:17 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
Maybe PennDOT is just fortunate enough to have some people who know what they are doing in the right places. :P
You spoke a tad too soon. The recently-replaced BGS for Exit 16A (I-76 East/PA 23) off I-476 North features Clearview on the Exit tab as well as the control destinations. I'm not 100% sure, but I will have to recheck to see if Clearview was also used on the cardinal (EAST) as well. PennDOT's done that on some other BGS' as well.
Yeah, that's why I said _some_, not "all". :P
The PA Clearview examples above (not the Turnpike one) are appropriate for this thread in my opinion--it's tolerable to me and laid out well and not overused.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 13, 2012, 07:02:25 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
Even though I really dislike this font, here are some well laid out Clearview signs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2375%2F5769211580_455264ed9b_z.jpg&hash=6002f2cb3c9c888d46cfc5ab92add7e483899f97)
Exit 202 tab: Illegal use of Clearview.
However, I've seen Arizona use Clearview exit tabs on their signs as evidenced on this sign which is actually placed in California:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2311%2F2495683409_38e804e8fb.jpg&hash=af291838616ad05bad7d059048e6a2e174be875f)
(credits to Bigmikelakers)Are Clearview exit numbers approved?
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 13, 2012, 11:12:34 PM
Are Clearview exit numbers approved?
The FHWA FAQ seems to suggest that they are not, since it says that numerals should be in the traditional lettering, but that is probably the most frequently violated rule if it is a rule....nearly every Clearview (except PennDOT, and even they sometimes do) user seems to use Clearview for everything on a BGS--exit numbers, all-caps action messages included. Route numbers are the one exception where most states have gotten it right but there are some that seem to have not gotten the memo (Louisiana I-10 and I-12, many Michigan shields from early Clearview days, we are looking at you) for all their signage.
Most Clearview signs in Québec and Vermont look nice. But I might be biased in favour of that typeface.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 13, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 13, 2012, 11:15:53 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e)
If there has to be a sign that can be classified as the "best of clearview", this one has my vote. Clearview only for the control cities and FHWA font for everything else although I can't tell if "TOLL ROAD" is clearview or Series E. The sign pictured in the original post does not qualify as "best of clearview" in my book because the "1/2 MILE" is in clearview and not Series E.
I take issue with this one because of how large the destinations are in comparison to the shields and other text on the sign. It looks misproportioned. The Ohio example is more correct in that regard.
^ I totally agree. To me the contro city text on that sign looks gigantic.
I suppose I'm in the minority here, in that I prefer a sign to be either in all Clearview or all FHWA.
Solely from an aesthetic point of view, an all-Clearview sign looks better and more consistent to me than one with the typefaces mixed.
Beaufort County, S.C. is using Clearview on Interstate 95 now.
Quote from: Central Avenue on July 14, 2012, 02:07:52 AM
I suppose I'm in the minority here, in that I prefer a sign to be either in all Clearview or all FHWA.
Solely from an aesthetic point of view, an all-Clearview sign looks better and more consistent to me than one with the typefaces mixed.
Then you would not like this courtesy of ISTHA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_1792.jpg&hash=0a7e53119112f707068007dbb24ad4718d119353)
Part of it is Clearview, part of it is FHWA.
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 13, 2012, 11:59:00 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 13, 2012, 11:12:34 PM
Are Clearview exit numbers approved?
The FHWA FAQ seems to suggest that they are not, since it says that numerals should be in the traditional lettering, but that is probably the most frequently violated rule if it is a rule....nearly every Clearview (except PennDOT, and even they sometimes do) user seems to use Clearview for everything on a BGS--exit numbers, all-caps action messages included. Route numbers are the one exception where most states have gotten it right but there are some that seem to have not gotten the memo (Louisiana I-10 and I-12, many Michigan shields from early Clearview days, we are looking at you) for all their signage.
Good to know. Lately VDOT has been replacing perfectly fine gore signs with new ones containing Clearview, with much smaller numbers than their predecessors, making them
harder to read!
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 14, 2012, 01:17:02 AM
I take issue with this one because of how large the destinations are in comparison to the shields and other text on the sign. It looks misproportioned. The Ohio example is more correct in that regard.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on July 14, 2012, 01:22:31 AM
^ I totally agree. To me the contro city text on that sign looks gigantic.
Okay, if it weren't for the all caps Clearview in the "TOLL ROAD" and the gargantuan control cities, I would absolutely approve of this sign.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 14, 2012, 10:10:13 AMOkay, if it weren't for the all caps Clearview in the "TOLL ROAD" and the gargantuan control cities, I would absolutely approve of this sign.
One BGS that has seemingly large control city lettering (in Clearview) is the recently-opened EXIT 329 (for Henderson Road) off I-76 West between Gulph Mills and King of Prussia. The lettering for the
King of Prussia and
Norristown control cities are (or at least appear)
huge on those BGS'. Complete overkill IMHO, especially for an unnumbered road.
Benton, Texas along SH121:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FTX121BulbExposure.jpg&hash=327d22c4623c265295c17e11e71f087b6571d7e3)
I don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 14, 2012, 05:59:27 PM
I don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
It may be within specs, but I do agree that it
seems out of proportion. Perhaps there's not enough green space around things to make it seem in proportion better? You're more the expert on that, for sure. Could that be it?
I prefer the Clearview/FHWA hybrid signs. The lettering is clear if done right, and the numbers are what you'd expect to see posted as North US 55.
Quote from: mcdonaat on July 14, 2012, 06:28:42 PM
I prefer the Clearview/FHWA hybrid signs. The lettering is clear if done right, and the numbers are what you'd expect to see posted as North US 55.
Like this from IDOT? Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi837.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz298%2Fmidamcrossrds%2F100_2263.jpg&hash=4677d043c57cbad4eb0cb62f56d09be466ef4c1d)
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:37:12 PM
Like this from IDOT? Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.
The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.
Quote from: kphoger on July 14, 2012, 06:04:32 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on July 14, 2012, 05:59:27 PMI don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
It may be within specs, but I do agree that it seems out of proportion. Perhaps there's not enough green space around things to make it seem in proportion better? You're more the expert on that, for sure. Could that be it?
The spacing looks fairly close to specification to me--it is the extra-wide space between the "1" and "1/2" in "1 1/2 MILES" that looks strange. However, "TOLL ROAD" is in what looks like 12" upper-case Clearview letters rather than 15", which is what it would have to be in order to be a true "small caps" treatment in relation to the primary destination legend. The shield also has a busy design with Series C digits, so I think it would have been worthwhile to increase its size from 36" to 48", as is occasionally done when the primary destination legend is 20" UC.
I am tempted to try some mockups--if I actually go ahead and do them, I will post them here.
I have now gone ahead and prepared mockups. They are all done at the same scale, and for simplicity omit the exit tab and use an ordinary Pa. 43 shield rather than the special Pa. Tpk. 43 shield (I just didn't feel like digging up Publication 236M). I also left "TOLL ROAD" in Series E Modified to match the current practice in many PennDOT districts of using Clearview only for the primary destination legend. On the actual sign, as already noted, "TOLL ROAD" appears in Clearview, but for purposes of this comparison the typeface is less important than the relative size. For comparison, here is the original:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e)
As a warmup, here are two versions of the sign, one with FHWA Series E Modified and the other with Clearview 5-W, both using 16" UC for the primary destination legend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F5%2F5c%2FPa-43-pittsburgh-california-ags-series-e-modified.png&hash=962d598a6684f481ee66e53f0d1cb8c415d473bb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2F8%2F89%2FPa-43-pittsburgh-california-ags-clearview-5-w.png&hash=37264cdf7ef02f1604653f19f970a94fd75fd037)
Both of the following examples use 20" UC for the primary destination legend. The first uses 15" UC for "small caps" all around:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fd7%2FPa-43-pittsburgh-california-ags-clearview-5-w-20-in.png&hash=44ad95523a7e2e7f010804fcb7d44eec505d80a4)
The second uses 12" UC for "TOLL ROAD" but retains 15" UC for the distance expression:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fba%2FPa-43-pittsburgh-california-ags-clearview-5-w-20-in-12-in.png&hash=6f44432d5a4920ee53f5b9bd17197f65b1dbc79f)
The last of these examples shows how the 12" legend creates the false perception that the primary destination legend is oversized.
Here is a side-by-side comparison:
| (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sabre-roads.org.uk%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fba%2FPa-43-pittsburgh-california-ags-clearview-5-w-20-in-12-in.png&hash=6f44432d5a4920ee53f5b9bd17197f65b1dbc79f) | (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5160%2F5874982951_f47dc76ca8_z.jpg&hash=8d49ada7b73237bf8c873b6a0b543c3af3140b0e) |
See?
Edit: After looking at the right-hand side of the side-by-side comparison for a while, I now suspect the distance expression uses 12" for the "small caps" too. (This is also not unusual for ground-mounted signs with 20" UC for primary destination legend.)
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 14, 2012, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:37:12 PM
Like this from IDOT? Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.
The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.
I agree, too. :nod:
Heh, looks like JN Winkler beat me to it with regards to drawing the Pennsylvania exit sign for Penn Turnpike Rt 43. Here are my drawings for that sign and I did take the time to add both the Pennsylvania state route and turnpike route shields to my sign-making library...
The 100% FHWA sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fpat43_fhwa.png&hash=2fc90dd1b62ebd8aa2f796303d53ef8b84683f21)
FHWA/Clearview Hybrid (Clearview is standard 16" capital letter height)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fpat43_cc-cv.png&hash=6e5bcb2db89fad9a5b6b5e650baf20830366ee4d)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 14, 2012, 07:25:33 PM
The shield also has a busy design with Series C digits, so I think it would have been worthwhile to increase its size from 36" to 48", as is occasionally done when the primary destination legend is 20" UC.
FWIW, according to the sign specs for the Pennsylvania route shields I downloaded from the PennDOT website, there are only specs for a 36" shield... nothing larger, nothing smaller.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 14, 2012, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 14, 2012, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2012, 06:37:12 PM
Like this from IDOT? Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.
The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.
I agree, too. :nod:
Thirded. Also, the cardinal should be in the FHWA series as well.
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2012, 05:35:51 PM
Benton, Texas along SH121:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FTX121BulbExposure.jpg&hash=327d22c4623c265295c17e11e71f087b6571d7e3)
I hope you meant
Bedford.
Quote from: txstateends on July 15, 2012, 05:24:42 AM
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2012, 05:35:51 PM
Benton, Texas along SH121:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.formulanone.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FTX121BulbExposure.jpg&hash=327d22c4623c265295c17e11e71f087b6571d7e3)
I hope you meant Bedford.
Yeah, that was it...Recollection by head, not map.
A few Clearview Texas highway shields, the state that prides itself on having the 'best' Clearview in the US:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX20094311t314310.jpg)(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX20051831t301831.jpg)(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX20052552t302550.jpg)
As far as I can tell, Pennsylvania does the best Clearview from a technical perspective, by only using it in white 5W on green for destinations on guide signs. All the other places that use Clearview regularly seem to use it also for sign elements that the feds say shouldn't be in Clearview.
On the other hand, from an aesthetic perspective, if you can do all your signs using only Clearview, making proper use of the different widths without stretching, and using the correct B or W variant depending on contrast orientation, and don't otherwise screw up the metrics of your signs, you've got some good Clearview.
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2012, 03:50:01 PM
As far as I can tell, Pennsylvania does the best Clearview from a technical perspective, by only using it in white 5W on green for destinations on guide signs. All the other places that use Clearview regularly seem to use it also for sign elements that the feds say shouldn't be in Clearview.
On the other hand, from an aesthetic perspective, if you can do all your signs using only Clearview, making proper use of the different widths without stretching, and using the correct B or W variant depending on contrast orientation, and don't otherwise screw up the metrics of your signs, you've got some good Clearview.
Not so fast there. You must've overlooked some of the earlier posts. I've seen plenty of
Clearview Gone Wild on
many PA signs... mostly ones from the PTC. And just when one thinks that both PennDOT and PTC finally
get it with regards to when to use
and when not to use Clearview; one sees a new sign that does not display such
restraint.
Apparently, not all districts are on the same page as of yet.