I am sure this has been covered in other threads, but since both Clearview and Highway Gothic are approved fonts for MUTCD specifications, not all states are switching. Is that a true statement . . .
. . . or have those states just not got around to resigning their BGS?
I am with you. I am a Highway Gothic fan. I am not a Clearview hater per se, but I do find it slightly annoying. And I hate the numbers. The only reason I was afraid of all states changing is because I have a feeling this is FHWA's way of slowly phasing out Highway Gothic (you know, let's make them both approved now until enough time has passed, then ban it). I personally find Highway Gothic comforting and makes me think of my favorite road trips. Clearview makes me think "oh, there is a font that wants to be on a highway sign, how cute."
I am with you. I am a Highway Gothic fan. I am not a Clearview hater per se, but I do find it slightly annoying. And I hate the numbers. The only reason I was afraid of all states changing is because I have a feeling this is FHWA's way of slowly phasing out Highway Gothic (you know, let's make them both approved now until enough time has passed, then ban it). I personally find Highway Gothic comforting and makes me think of my favorite road trips. Clearview makes me think "oh, there is a font that wants to be on a highway sign, how cute."
Clearview numbers are quite possibly the ugliest thing to look at. The letters aren't that bad, but the numbers? I'd take Arialveticagrotesk numbers ANY day over Clearview's.
There has been heavy sign replacement activity in states that have not changed over to Clearview. OR, ID, MA, KS, SD, MO, GA, FL, IN, and MN come to mind.Add CT to that list. All the recent BGS replacements along I-84 are not in Clearview. The two 'one-off' westbound Clearview BGS' in Waterbury were recently replaced.
since both Clearview and Highway Gothic are approved fonts for MUTCD specifications, not all states are switching.If memory serves, the FHWA's acceptance of Clearview is presently a temporary one (i.e. trail basis).
I am sure this has been covered in other threads, but since both Clearview and Highway Gothic are approved fonts for MUTCD specifications, not all states are switching. Is that a true statement, or have those states just not got around to resigning their BGS? The two big offenders I can think of are CalTrans and MassDOT. Are there other states that haven't made the switch or are there ones that aren't planning to ever switch?
I am sure this has been covered in other threads, but since both Clearview and Highway Gothic are approved fonts for MUTCD specifications, not all states are switching. Is that a true statement . . .
Yes, it is a true statement.Quote. . . or have those states just not got around to resigning their BGS?
No. There has been heavy sign replacement activity in states that have not changed over to Clearview. OR, ID, MA, KS, SD, MO, GA, FL, IN, and MN come to mind. Similarly, it is not generally true that changeover to Clearview is correlated with massive sign replacements. In some states (AZ, MI, VA) that has been the case, but in others (SC, AR, OK) changing to Clearview has actually coincided with a drop in the amount of sign replacement activity.
PHLBOS and Dr. Frankenstein are both correct. Use of Clearview font still requires FHWA to grant a state Interim Approval for use. One condition of interim approval is that, should FHWA find the font to be unacceptable in the future, the approval is recinded and all now non-conforming devices are to be replaced with standard ones.
Interim approval is usually granted for things (like VDOT's 12 panel LOGO signs) that are anticipated to be included in the next edition of the MUTCD. It's interesting that, although the 2009 MUTCD has been issued, FHWA is still requiring interim approval for Clearview.
As for the use of Clearview on "negative contrast" signs (i.e. black on white or black on yellow), Texas Transportation Institute did a study that demonstrated that visibility of Clearview signs is actually worse than with Highway Gothic. This is the reason for the FHWA recommendations.
I guess I have a slightly skewed view of the Clearview topic being a resident of Texas. TxDOT is madly in love with Clearview and have made it the state's standard font for non FHWA regulated highways (ie: U.S., State, and Farm to Market Highways). If what you are saying is true and the FHWA chooses some day to pull the plug on Clearview, Texas will have a boat load of signs that will be deemed "non conforming" and will cost them a ton of money. Way to spend our money wisely Texas!! Again, it was stupid to go nuts on Clearview when Highway Gothic does the job perfectly fine.
MassDOT does not use Clearview (the Clearview guide sign for MA 9 on US 20 in Shrewsbury was a fluke and will be replaced), nor do they plan to adopt the font at anytime in the future.
If FHWA would just go to Series E instead of Series E(M), Clearview would have no leg to stand on re: stroke width, hole size, and halation.
I remember seeing a guide sign or whatever it's called on I-55 north in Illinois yesterday that used Clearview letters and Highway Gothic numbers. I almost gagged, no kidding. I mean, I don't mind Clearview, but that combination looked ugly as hell, especially since one of the "cities" on the sign was Illinois 111.
EDIT: Er, maybe it wasn't 111, it wasn't that close to East StL, but it still looked horrid.
Q: Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?
A: Numerals and special characters have not been tested for legibility and concerns have been reported thereon in field applications. Therefore, numerals continue to be displayed on highway signs using the Standard Alphabets.
An image of a guide sign is shown with the legend "Nuangola 2 MILES." The destination of Nuangola is displayed in upper- and lower-case letters of the alternative alphabet. The distance legend of 2 MILES is shown in all upper-case letters of the Standard Alphabets.
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/images/fig4.jpg)
Figure 4. ACCEPTABLE: Example of appropriate use of Clearview for destination legend (mixed-case) and FHWA Standard Alphabets for other legends (all upper-case and numerals).
I'm pretty sure that that is how Clearview is intended to be used - at least according to the FHWA page on Clearview. (Located here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/ ) Here's what I'm talking about...Quote
Q: Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?
A: Numerals and special characters have not been tested for legibility and concerns have been reported thereon in field applications. Therefore, numerals continue to be displayed on highway signs using the Standard Alphabets.
An image of a guide sign is shown with the legend "Nuangola 2 MILES." The destination of Nuangola is displayed in upper- and lower-case letters of the alternative alphabet. The distance legend of 2 MILES is shown in all upper-case letters of the Standard Alphabets.
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/images/fig4.jpg)
Figure 4. ACCEPTABLE: Example of appropriate use of Clearview for destination legend (mixed-case) and FHWA Standard Alphabets for other legends (all upper-case and numerals).
Yup, Clearview is presently only being used on an interim basis, and only for positive contrast (light legend on dark background), which essentially means freeway BGS and other similar applications. It is not allowed for use on negative contrast (dark legend on light background), as studies have not shown it to be any more legible than the standard FHWA Series fonts.
Yup, Clearview is presently only being used on an interim basis, and only for positive contrast (light legend on dark background), which essentially means freeway BGS and other similar applications. It is not allowed for use on negative contrast (dark legend on light background), as studies have not shown it to be any more legible than the standard FHWA Series fonts.
While that's what FHWA has approved, the reality has unfortunately been that it's been used in all the wrong ways. Negative contrast, all-caps, numbers in shields, numbers for distances and exit numbers...none of those are approved uses but they are out there--big time in some places.
Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to issue an Interim Approval for the optional use of the Clearview font for positive contrast legends on guide signs.
. . .
Conditions of Interim Approval: Spacing of Clearview font shall follow the spacing tables for Clearview, and not SHS E-modified. This includes the use of the Clearview 5-W(R) spacing tables for overhead conditions that may not accommodate a Clearview 5-W legend in replacement of existing E-modified legends. Action word messages and cardinal directions shall remain in all upper case letters and the first upper case letter of a cardinal direction shall be 10 percent greater in height for conventional road guide signs as per Table 2E.1 through Table 2E.4 of the 2003 MUTCD for expressway/freeway guide signs. The Clearview font should not be used on negative contrast signs until research demonstrates the effectiveness.
I think that contributes to my dislike for it--it's being misused in places it doesn't belong like exit gore signs and all-caps street sign blades that shouldn't have any Clearview at all and probably because the people who sell it don't tell the buyers just how restricted the approved usage really is.
Despite WisDOT rejecting Clearview, my home town City of Appleton began using a condensed version of it on its street name blade signs last summer (ie, see: http://goo.gl/maps/MBYjG This image was shot during September of 2012 at Superior/Washington in downtown Appleton) and the City's public works guys have been going hog-wild with new signs with that font throughout the city this year.
Also note that little white blotch below the directional 'W' on that sign - with the conversion to that font last year, the City is now date-stamping its blade signs, the blotch says "12".
Mike
If FHWA would just go to Series E instead of Series E(M), Clearview would have no leg to stand on re: stroke width, hole size, and halation.
Despite WisDOT rejecting Clearview, my home town City of Appleton began using a condensed version of it on its street name blade signs last summer (ie, see: http://goo.gl/maps/MBYjG This image was shot during September of 2012 at Superior/Washington in downtown Appleton) and the City's public works guys have been going hog-wild with new signs with that font throughout the city this year.
Also note that little white blotch below the directional 'W' on that sign - with the conversion to that font last year, the City is now date-stamping its blade signs, the blotch says "12".
Mike
How old are these signs http://goo.gl/maps/d8CWU (http://goo.gl/maps/d8CWU)? I was just in Appleton yesterday and saw a bunch of these with the apple logo, definitely not Clearview.
^^ Georgia is now using the E(M) font, but is not systemically replacing all their signs so most of their D signs are still up.
....
Two years ago a new font has been derived: Dd. The idea behind it is something you Americans would call Series D (modified); i.e. Series D with a little more space between the characters.
What do you all think of Uu and Dd [or: D(m) ] versus Ee/E(m)
OK, this was the kind of info I was looking for.Two years ago a new font has been derived: Dd. The idea behind it is something you Americans would call Series D (modified); i.e. Series D with a little more space between the characters.
the key modification is the weight of the font: the line thickness. I believe the (M) series, as used in the US, is 10% bolder. (I'd have to look up that number.) I know California used BM, CM, DM in the 40s and 50s, and CM and DM have shown up in other places as well. I've never seen AM, and I've seen a few button elements that are FM.
it looks like Dd is DM, in that the stroke thickness is indeed bolder.
as can be expected, I don't much like Uu. I am fine with Dd and Ee.You are not the only one. Returning to the Interstate font family and abolishing the newer Uu-font isn't an easy decision, but it's the logical consequence of learning from mistakes. Not everything new is better...
What do you all think of Uu and Dd [or: D(m) ] versus Ee/E(m)
| Series | Caltrans | FHWA |
| B | 0.14 | 0.125 |
| C | 0.16 | 0.141 |
| D | 0.18 | 0.156 |
| E | 0.20 | 0.172 |
| E Modified | (None) | 0.20 |
| F | 0.22 | 0.188 |
The 1989 publication says the "bolding" is done by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke width.
The 1989 publication says the "bolding" is done by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke width.
how are they saying 20%, and we came up with 10/11%? that is a huge discrepancy which implies to me a different measurement system. what is going on here?
| Series | Caltrans | FHWA | ratio |
| B | 0.14 | 0.125 | .12 |
| C | 0.16 | 0.141 | .134 |
| D | 0.18 | 0.156 | .153 |
| E | 0.20 | 0.172 | .162 |
| E Modified | (None) | 0.20 | n/a |
| F | 0.22 | 0.188 | .17 |
I'm still not sure how your chart works. I've added a ratio column, which is Caltrans/FHWA - 1
Series Caltrans FHWA ratio B 0.14 0.125 .12 C 0.16 0.141 .134 D 0.18 0.156 .153 E 0.20 0.172 .162 E Modified (None) 0.20 n/a F 0.22 0.188 .17
in any case, it's not good that we both independently came up with something quite wrong. perhaps we should perform self-flagellation. I will close my eyes and imagine highway signs in Arialveticverstesk for the next 10 minutes.
I checked your values and, yes, it looks like the chart (which is typed straight from the 1989 publication) disagrees with the part in the text where it says the Caltrans stroke is obtained by adding 20% to the FHWA stroke for the same series.
I don't see a lot of value in taking the whips, flails, cilices, etc. out of the closet when a source that is supposed to be authoritative is internally inconsistent.
(This is not without precedent where Caltrans documentation is concerned--I remember a 1958 edition of the traffic manual that said to use Series D with lowercase at a 3:2 height ratio, and was accompanied by art showing Series E used instead.) And, anyway, ten minutes of imaging Arialveticverstesk displays sounds like an excellent recipe for PTSD.
It also seems to me that by making Dd available to sign designers, the Rijkwaterstaat (if that is what the Dutch equivalent to FHWA is still called) has set up the same trap as FHWA has done in the 2003 and 2009 editions of the MUTCD, which is to allow the widespread use of typefaces of lower intrinsic legibility. Dd, however well designed it is, is too condensed to match Ee for legibility. The conservative approach to design is therefore whenever possible to avoid substituting Dd for Ee, and when Dd must be used, to make some compensating alteration in the sign design--such as dropping one or more destinations--to ensure motorists' task loads are not increased.No, that's not the case. Dd/DM will replace Uu, but not Ee/EM. On freeways Ee will be used in the future. Dd/DM is only to be used in NL as a replacement of kerned Ee/EM.
(It's called "gekernd Ee) in Dutch, I don't know the proper English term)
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Kerning_zps6e17f770.png)German fail trombone?
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Kerning_zps6e17f770.png)German fail trombone?
I assume there's some obvious joke I'm missing there. I have no idea what point you're making!My foray into the world of memes quickly ended in failure.
I assume there's some obvious joke I'm missing there. I have no idea what point you're making!My foray into the world of memes quickly ended in failure.
http://www.sadtrombone.com/?play=true
and Germans pronounce W like V.
I actually like Uu.Never gonna give Uu up
... *runs away*
ethanhopkin14, I see your sign and raise you this:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3Dd1zHehU8c/UzHHTmcnaHI/AAAAAAAAAHY/BYCtQjGdm5Q/s640/08-28-09_1611.jpg)
Both typefaces on the same line. Near Marquette, Michigan, if I'm not mistaken.
...Do we really need to have the federal government dictating what font you can or cannot use on highway signs? ...
...Do we really need to have the federal government dictating what font you can or cannot use on highway signs? ...
Yes.
In fact, they already let states have a choice. It's not the variations one can have using MS Word, but there are a few variations. Otherwise, standards are necessary, not only for font, but size, spacing, etc. There's a 100+ page thread on bad signage where one can see numerous examples of what happens when those standards aren't followed.
ethanhopkin14, I see your sign and raise you this:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3Dd1zHehU8c/UzHHTmcnaHI/AAAAAAAAAHY/BYCtQjGdm5Q/s640/08-28-09_1611.jpg)
Both typefaces on the same line. Near Marquette, Michigan, if I'm not mistaken.
Did the MDOT Superior Region just get bored one day, or did they get told by Lansing to change mid-sign?
Another hybrid: I-580/US 395 NB approaching Exit 65 Plumb Lane / Reno-Tahoe Airport (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Reno,+NV&hl=en&ll=39.499939,-119.783303&spn=0.004595,0.005681&sll=42.526932,-70.909895&sspn=0.00156,0.00284&oq=Reno&t=h&hnear=Reno,+Washoe+County,+Nevada&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.50018,-119.783213&panoid=hbIuO6qJwJPIu8E4u-soww&cbp=12,61.83,,1,1.53)
Interesting thing about this one is that it doesn't involve greenout--a brand new sign was installed with one line of text in standard FHWA font and the rest in Clearview. This sign was installed with the US 395 NB widening project about 3-4 years ago, in which all new signs on the project were done in Clearview--Nevada's first, and still only Clearview BGS signing.
Another hybrid: I-580/US 395 NB approaching Exit 65 Plumb Lane / Reno-Tahoe Airport (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Reno,+NV&hl=en&ll=39.499939,-119.783303&spn=0.004595,0.005681&sll=42.526932,-70.909895&sspn=0.00156,0.00284&oq=Reno&t=h&hnear=Reno,+Washoe+County,+Nevada&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.50018,-119.783213&panoid=hbIuO6qJwJPIu8E4u-soww&cbp=12,61.83,,1,1.53)
Interesting thing about this one is that it doesn't involve greenout--a brand new sign was installed with one line of text in standard FHWA font and the rest in Clearview. This sign was installed with the US 395 NB widening project about 3-4 years ago, in which all new signs on the project were done in Clearview--Nevada's first, and still only Clearview BGS signing.
Even here all the numerals remain in FHWA fonts, even though all-caps text is still set in Clearview. Pick one or the other in the same line of text, I say.
Freeway Gothic:confused:
Freeway Gothic (http://www.dafont.com/freeway-gothic.font)
Those symbols. (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10404/vomit-smiley-015.gif)
Clearview v. Gothic. For those unfamiliar with the road, the sign on the left is over the reversible center carriageway.
(http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Road%20sign%20pictures/US-1Woodbridgeexit_zps90c18672.png)
Things could eventually go in another direction too: cars and portable devices become sophisticated enough and so aware of their location the highway signs are no longer needed. That would be a little disappointing to me in one respect since the big green signs are part of what makes a super highway look like a superhighway.Several comments regarding the above:
I think the FHWA jumped the gun at least in some regard to specifying new typefaces for use on traffic signs, particularly highway signs. They had an opportunity, via OpenType font technology, to clear up some glaring problems with highway lettering (due in part to new MUTCD rules) -which could have been included in the Clearview font files. But that didn't happen. And I suspect that's because they didn't get input from other professional type designers and type experts about it.
OpenType allows for vastly expanded character sets. Series 2000 has a minimal character set. Clearview has a larger, but still fairly basic, Latin-only character set (including accented characters) good for North America and most of Western Europe. It doesn't have extra alphabets to cover Greek, Cyrillic or other character ranges like one often sees in most new commercial typefaces.
Highway signs use fake large/small capital arrangements on cardinal directions and anything else requiring a large cap-small cap treatment. The larger capital letter has a letter stroke thicker than the smaller capital letters to the right of it. That looks lousy. A typeface with true small capitals will have uniform, consistent looking letter strokes. Clearview should have had a "SC" set embedded in the font files and accessible to graphics applications that are fully OpenType capable.
By that time if traffic signs are still around they probably won't be quite so big and conspicuous.You are aware that highway signs are as large as they are due to the necessity of being read from a distance as well as travelling at higher rates of speeds than non-highways. One old Rand McNally write-up (circa 1970) on the interstate system indicated a typical driver going 65-to-70 mph has only about 11 seconds to read & react to a given BGS' messages.
You are aware that highway signs are as large as they are due to the necessity of being read from a distance as well as travelling at higher rates of speeds than non-highways. One old Rand McNally write-up (circa 1970) on the interstate system indicated a typical driver going 65-to-70 mph has only about 11 seconds to read & react to a given BGS' messages.
As far as everything heading towards automation is concerned; while some of your fore-mentioned items are indeed along the way, public reaction to them is still unknown yet. Case in point: the public flat out rejected talking cars when such were offered during the 1980s. Personally, I could see similar reaction towards driver-less cars. While self-parking is available on some car models; such automation is done for only a short period of time (a few minutes) and at a significantly lower operating speed. It's not like the self-park feature is operating at 70 mph of a couple of hours or even a half-hour. Big difference between that and any self-driving feature being proposed.
FHWA didn't actually develop Clearview. It was developed by a commercial font designer, with some research to improve it done by university transportation research teams in Texas and Pennsylvania. So really, the OpenType features you mention should be present. That being said, I don't know how useful they would be. I don't know what the software stack used for commercial sign work looks like, but highway signs aren't done up in Illustrator—they use specialized CAD programs (usually SignCAD or GuidSIGN, the latter of which is used by Oklahoma), which may not support OpenType features.
This is not necessarily a feature of OpenType; TrueType fonts can, to my knowledge, support any number of glyphs. The limitations are due to character set (not much of an issue now that we have Unicode everywhere) and the patience of the font designer to draw up all of the glyphs. It is the latter that is responsible for the limited number of glyphs in FHWA Series font implementations. The font as we know it today was first published circa 1948 as a set of outlines in a hard-copy Standard Highway Signs book. At the time, little thought was given to anything not on an English typewriter, and had there been, chances are it would have been rejected for space reasons anyway. Everything being non-computerized then gave a bit of flexibility to the typeface—rather than designing a É glyph, you could take the basic Latin E and put an apostrophe over it at an appropriate angle. Since the typeface was designed for road signs, there was little demand for most of those characters anyway—for legibility reasons, punctuation is usually omitted, and accents and tildes are typically dropped.
You are aware that highway signs are as large as they are due to the necessity of being read from a distance as well as travelling at higher rates of speeds than non-highways.
As far as everything heading towards automation is concerned; while some of your fore-mentioned items are indeed along the way, public reaction to them is still unknown yet. Case-and-point; the public flat out rejected talking cars when such were offered during the 1980s.
Sheesh, you practically can't do any work on a new car without hooking it up to a computer.Ain't that the truth. That's one reason why I tend to hold on to my current cars as long as I can.
Regarding public reaction to automation, I think they'll go right along with it if the feature is sold right. Honestly, I wouldn't mind being able to put my truck into "auto-pilot" for at least 400 miles of the 600 miles I drive between Oklahoma and Colorado to visit family. I wouldn't mind climbing into my vehicle and snoozing or watching movies while the vehicle chauffeured me there. I could leave any hour of the evening and not worry about falling asleep behind the wheel.Although Auto-Pilot been used in aviation applications for decades; there's still a human control element out there known as Air Traffic Controllers dictating where flights/planes are to be positioned. Plus, Auto-Pilot does not control take-offs & landings. Additionally on planes equipped w/Auto-Pilot, there's always a co-pilot stationed on board in case conditions warrant a need to shut off/override the feature if the pilot isn't available at that moment. As far as I know, planes operated by just one pilot (usually small private types) are not equipped w/an Auto-Pilot feature.
Legal issues may force more of this automation to take control. Traffic accidents cost the country many billions of dollars every year. If millions of cars were driving automatically they would be observing speed limits, traffic signals and other vehicles better than us humans are managing. It could cause insurance rates to drop. Or it could make owning a manual drive only car a whole lot more expensive to insure.Again, that analysis is based on the utopian notion that everything will work properly 100% of the time. I've already seen or read about drivers having blind faith w/their GPS devices be them in their vehicles, aftermarket models or ones on their Smart Phones and they make either the same or more mistakes than they did without using such. While automation will take out the human/user error factor (at least those can be over-ridden) what will happen should something go wrong w/the automation itself? Will there still be an available manual over-ride where the driver can just drive the vehicle manually should they want or need to? If so, then signs (including BGS') will still be needed; hence, the original thread topic.
When I think about this sort of thing I think about what attorneys have done to swimming pools in the United States. Pools are boring now. You can't install a diving board or even a small water slide on a swimming pool in your own back yard on your own private property without insurance companies price gouging the hell out of you. If I smack my head on a swimming pool diving board at someone else's house it's honestly only 100% my fault. Somehow lawyers made it the pool owner's fault. Lawyers are taking the fun out of everything. They'll eventually take the fun out of driving cars too.To a degree, they already did decades ago. Attorneys & insurance companies played a role (they weren't the only ones, mind you) in forcing automakers (mainly the Big Three at the time) to abandon/scale back on performance to a point where muscle cars were essentially gone and the remaining pony & sports cars were virtually emasculated by the mid-1970s. It would take decades for performance to return and even surpass those from the 60s.
Although Auto-Pilot been used in aviation applications for decades; there's still a human control element out there known as Air Traffic Controllers dictating where flights/planes are to be positioned. Plus, Auto-Pilot does not control take-offs & landings. Additionally on planes equipped w/Auto-Pilot, there's always a co-pilot stationed on board in case conditions warrant a need to shut off/override the feature if the pilot isn't available at that moment. As far as I know, planes operated by just one pilot (usually small private types) are not equipped w/an Auto-Pilot feature.
While automation will take out the human/user error factor (at least those can be over-ridden) what will happen should something go wrong w/the automation itself?
Will there still be an available manual over-ride where the driver can just drive the vehicle manually should they want or need to? If so, then signs (including BGS') will still be needed; hence, the original thread topic.
If it looks terrible it's going to keep looking terrible for years until it is removed or replaced.
SignCAD and GuidSign are only geared to support TrueType and specifically the Series Gothic and Clearview type families. Their main attraction is all the templates, libraries, etc. that speed up highway sign fabrication. On the fundamental object creation and editing level both applications are very primitive compared to Adobe Illustrator and CorelDRAW. Sorry if I offend anyone with that, but if those applications actually beat Illustrator and Corel in terms of creative features and object editing accuracy the vendors selling SignCAD and GuidSign would be trying to sell their applications to a lot more than just people fabricating traffic signs.
Long story short; while automation exists & has existed in aviation for some time, there's still human control elements out there. In contrast, what's being proposed in the automotive world is automation without any human control nor override. I'm sorry but such a utopian approach is not only scary but flat out dangerous IMHO.
If you're familiar w/the original Star Trek, there was one episode during the show's 2nd season titled The Ultimate Computer that dealt with the issues of 100% automation head-on. IMHO, such that episode turned out to be well ahead of its time (2 key clips included below).
US signs are actually pretty easy to do in CorelDRAW because the design standards by and large assume rectangular format with design elements being aligned either horizontally or vertically, but (to take one example) British map-type diagrammatics would be very hard to do in CorelDRAW, though not impossible, because the official guidelines call for elements (such as stub arms) at angles, as well as rounding of inside corners.
Considered as a graphic design problem, devising a traffic signing system is not about making an attractive and functional sign, or even a series of attractive and functional signs, but rather establishing a set of rules that people with no formal training in graphic design can apply in a production environment without going under a minimum level of function or visual appeal.
This is not to say that Clearview or another type family couldn't be successfully rolled out to US traffic signs. But in order for this to happen, any set of sign design rules that is devised to accommodate a new type family has to take account of the resources that are likely to be available for training, quality assurance, and quality control so that the finished signs are consistently of good quality. It is as silly to hand complicated rules to the poorly trained and expect good results as it is to put a gold watch on a window seat and expect it to be ignored by smash-and-grab thieves.
Speaking of that, it appears FHWA may do such a thing. They are apparently not granting anymore interim approvals to use Clearview - example of such a rejection (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf)
From the TTI study on E modified vs Clearview and "enhanced" E modified Thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12128.0):Given the huge backlash we saw over the new retroreflectivity rules, my prediction is that states that currently use Clearview in the proper manner won't be required to restore everything to E(m) immediately, but will be encouraged to accelerate their sign replacement programs to minimize the amount of time that Clearview legends remain.Speaking of that, it appears FHWA may do such a thing. They are apparently not granting anymore interim approvals to use Clearview - example of such a rejection (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf)
While the above doesn't yet address the issue regarding states that currently use Clearview; could such action occur later? Stay tuned.
From the TTI study on E modified vs Clearview and "enhanced" E modified Thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12128.0):Given the huge backlash we saw over the new retroreflectivity rules, my prediction is that states that currently use Clearview in the proper manner won't be required to restore everything to E(m) immediately, but will be encouraged to accelerate their sign replacement programs to minimize the amount of time that Clearview legends remain.Speaking of that, it appears FHWA may do such a thing. They are apparently not granting anymore interim approvals to use Clearview - example of such a rejection (https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.atssa.com/Resources/Interpretation+Letters/IA-5.31+%28DENIED%29+Clearview-Grays+Harbor+Co+WA-REPLY.pdf)
While the above doesn't yet address the issue regarding states that currently use Clearview; could such action occur later? Stay tuned.
Of course, I would expect that anything that doesn't presently conform - mainly Clearview negative contract signs (yes, I'm looking at you PA and TX) would have to be changed out as soon as possible.
Unless the FHWA plans to fund those operations, the signs are staying until they wear out. The same way button copy is still around. The FHWA hasn't granted any approval for button copy in years (as far as I'm aware), but they didn't immediately force everyone to remove the signs.
Good points Jake. However, given how litigious our society is these days, when the Clearview death knell is finally sounded, it may behoove state DOTS to at least replace any negative contract signs they made with Clearview, which have been documented by FHWA and others to have poorer nighttime contrast than with Highway Gothic signs with Highway Gothic signs.
Unless the FHWA plans to fund those operations, the signs are staying until they wear out. The same way button copy is still around. The FHWA hasn't granted any approval for button copy in years (as far as I'm aware), but they didn't immediately force everyone to remove the signs.
The two are not quite comparable since button copy was a subsystem in sign manufacturing, not a separate typeface requiring FHWA approval. And the retroreflectivity requirement will squeeze out button copy in time.
FHWA does make funding available for sign replacement, but since this is charged against the states' federal-aid allocations and so is not "free" money, there will be a lot of resistance at the state level to changing out brand-new Clearview freeway signs even if the federal government picks up 100% of the cost under one of the safety categories. I anticipate that if the Clearview interim approval is cancelled (as now seems probable), there will be an extended phaseout period with the intent of allowing existing Clearview signs to remain until they are life-expired. That will not take too long since the new retroreflectivity requirements tend to shorten sign replacement cycles.
Unless the FHWA plans to fund those operations, the signs are staying until they wear out. The same way button copy is still around. The FHWA hasn't granted any approval for button copy in years (as far as I'm aware), but they didn't immediately force everyone to remove the signs.
The two are not quite comparable since button copy was a subsystem in sign manufacturing, not a separate typeface requiring FHWA approval. And the retroreflectivity requirement will squeeze out button copy in time.
Fair enough. So it's in the same category as NYSDOT's rounding off of corners (which I love)?
Since the FHWA's conclusion was that the difference between FHWA Series 2000 and Clearview was negligible (right?) and that Clearview was not found to be superior to FHWA Series 2000, it would seem either font should be acceptable. Each state should be allowed to do as it wishes. I'm approaching a different subject at this point so I'll just end now.
I would expect that anything that doesn't presently conform - mainly Clearview negative contract signs (yes, I'm looking at you PA and TX) would have to be changed out as soon as possible.
All this griping about Clearview is coming down to matters of taste and nothing else.
I hate to break it to other road geeks, FHWA Series Gothic is nowhere near the prettiest font ever developed. Honestly, it's a fairly ugly typeface on its own. Even the cleaned up Interstate typeface re-drawn by Tobias Frere Jones, arguably one of the very best type designers in the world, is still pretty harsh looking. And it has a great deal more creative functionality built into it than the Series Gothic fonts. The attachment to Series Gothic by way of many road geeks is deeply pinned in nostalgia and resistance to change for something better.
My feeling on the topic: if the FHWA removes interim approval of Clearview Highway for positive contrast legends they need to eliminate the current version of Series Gothic as well. It is an old, outdated, obsolete typeface. it does inspire nostalgia, but it is very very deficient when it comes to complying to the rules of the latest edition of the MUTCD. There is a deep need for something a whole hell of a lot better.
I would expect that anything that doesn't presently conform - mainly Clearview negative contract signs (yes, I'm looking at you PA and TX) would have to be changed out as soon as possible.
Someone ought to point that out to the Boston Transportation Department. Despite a pointed denial in January of 2012 from the department's spokesman, and despite being specifically prohibited in the Massachusetts supplement to the MUTCD, Boston is in the midst of replacing all its street signs with...you guessed it, new signs using Clearview. They're all over the Brighton neighborhood where I work and they're butt-ugly.
I would expect that anything that doesn't presently conform - mainly Clearview negative contract signs (yes, I'm looking at you PA and TX) would have to be changed out as soon as possible.
Someone ought to point that out to the Boston Transportation Department. Despite a pointed denial in January of 2012 from the department's spokesman, and despite being specifically prohibited in the Massachusetts supplement to the MUTCD, Boston is in the midst of replacing all its street signs with...you guessed it, new signs using Clearview. They're all over the Brighton neighborhood where I work and they're butt-ugly.
Not sure about other parts of the country but in California, cities are pretty much free to use whatever typeface they prefer on street blades. My city uses Bookman on street blades while others use Clearview (Santa Clara) or FHWA Series (San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View to name a few) or some other custom font (Los Gatos and Saratoga).
All this griping about Clearview is coming down to matters of taste and nothing else.
I hate to break it to other road geeks, FHWA Series Gothic is nowhere near the prettiest font ever developed. Honestly, it's a fairly ugly typeface on its own. Even the cleaned up Interstate typeface re-drawn by Tobias Frere Jones, arguably one of the very best type designers in the world, is still pretty harsh looking. And it has a great deal more creative functionality built into it than the Series Gothic fonts. The attachment to Series Gothic by way of many road geeks is deeply pinned in nostalgia and resistance to change for something better.
All this griping about Clearview is coming down to matters of taste and nothing else.
I hate to break it to other road geeks, FHWA Series Gothic is nowhere near the prettiest font ever developed. Honestly, it's a fairly ugly typeface on its own. Even the cleaned up Interstate typeface re-drawn by Tobias Frere Jones, arguably one of the very best type designers in the world, is still pretty harsh looking. And it has a great deal more creative functionality built into it than the Series Gothic fonts. The attachment to Series Gothic by way of many road geeks is deeply pinned in nostalgia and resistance to change for something better.
My feeling on the topic: if the FHWA removes interim approval of Clearview Highway for positive contrast legends they need to eliminate the current version of Series Gothic as well. It is an old, outdated, obsolete typeface. it does inspire nostalgia, but it is very very deficient when it comes to complying to the rules of the latest edition of the MUTCD. There is a deep need for something a whole hell of a lot better.
Not sure about other parts of the country but in California, cities are pretty much free to use whatever typeface they prefer on street blades. My city uses Bookman on street blades while others use Clearview (Santa Clara) or FHWA Series (San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View to name a few) or some other custom font (Los Gatos and Saratoga).
All this griping about Clearview is coming down to matters of taste and nothing else.
I hate to break it to other road geeks, FHWA Series Gothic is nowhere near the prettiest font ever developed. Honestly, it's a fairly ugly typeface on its own. Even the cleaned up Interstate typeface re-drawn by Tobias Frere Jones, arguably one of the very best type designers in the world, is still pretty harsh looking. And it has a great deal more creative functionality built into it than the Series Gothic fonts. The attachment to Series Gothic by way of many road geeks is deeply pinned in nostalgia and resistance to change for something better.
My feeling on the topic: if the FHWA removes interim approval of Clearview Highway for positive contrast legends they need to eliminate the current version of Series Gothic as well. It is an old, outdated, obsolete typeface. it does inspire nostalgia, but it is very very deficient when it comes to complying to the rules of the latest edition of the MUTCD. There is a deep need for something a whole hell of a lot better.
How many times don't you still see the use of Courier (not necessarily on signs, but rather on websites, documents, etc.)? Based on Highway Gothic being "obsolete", Courier should have died with the manual typewriter.
...I'm going to remain in the camp of if it ain't broken, don't mess with it
...I'm going to remain in the camp of if it ain't broken, don't mess with it
"From now on, everyone will be required to drive the 1985 Honda Civic because it has been determined by the Federal Government to be functionally identical to every car built since. Anyone caught driving a newer car will be publicly denounced."
...I'm going to remain in the camp of if it ain't broken, don't mess with it
"From now on, everyone will be required to drive the 1985 Honda Civic because it has been determined by the Federal Government to be functionally identical to every car built since. Anyone caught driving a newer car will be publicly denounced."
...I'm going to remain in the camp of if it ain't broken, don't mess with it
"From now on, everyone will be required to drive the 1985 Honda Civic because it has been determined by the Federal Government to be functionally identical to every car built since. Anyone caught driving a newer car will be publicly denounced."
Fonts vs. cars? I hope that's just sarcasm. Thanks for skipping over the whole scientific data and cost argument. It's not like I think outhouses are better than indoor plumbing.
And if you're talking about functionally identical, we should still be driving Model Ts, not an '85 Honda. No one really needs all those fancy electrical gizmos in their car.
Don't count clearview as dead yet. Nothing that FHWA does can/will stop MTQ from requiring it on all highway signs.
If that is true, why do we both insist on arguing to the ends of the earth about which is better, when they are apparently the same? As you all have previously stated, this argument is entirely one's aesthetic preference. As such, completely tossing Clearview and all uses of it just seems daft. Each state should be able to use whatever they wish, and we all need to stop arguing as, theoretically, neither side can win.
If that is true, why do we both insist on arguing to the ends of the earth about which is better, when they are apparently the same? As you all have previously stated, this argument is entirely one's aesthetic preference. As such, completely tossing Clearview and all uses of it just seems daft. Each state should be able to use whatever they wish, and we all need to stop arguing as, theoretically, neither side can win.
Agreed. No different than Ford vs Chevy, PC vs Mac. Despite scientific evidence, passion will always play a role. Saw it with my hometown's police department when they had the changing of the guard with police chiefs. One was a Ford guy (the one who retired), the replacement was a Chevy guy. Both companies build respectable police vehicles. Both (at the time) were very comparable in cost. Switching required buying all new roof lights, interior police "stuff" (cage, mounts, etc.), and acquiring new spare parts (at the time the city did their own vehicle maintenance). Fiscally, it was dumb to switch.
Since both fonts are "functionally identical", IMO, cost becomes the next big factor, which is where Clearview loses out.
Don't count clearview as dead yet. Nothing that FHWA does can/will stop MTQ from requiring it on all highway signs.
Don't count clearview as dead yet. Nothing that FHWA does can/will stop MTQ from requiring it on all highway signs.
Clearview is also now the standard in British Columbia and Alberta.
Actually, I think Interstate is worse than the vanilla FHWA series, which have a certain vernacular appeal, partly because the intercharacter spacing in Interstate is generally narrower. Highway signs that use the FHWA series at the classic (fairly wide) spacing convey an air of authority that is absent from Sainsburys product packaging, which is the main application of Interstate that I am aware of. Tobias Frere-Jones does not rank quite as high on my personal pantheon of type gods as Hermann Zapf or Adrian Frutiger.
It isn't a matter of taste - it's a matter of not spending any more money on a study that has now been depreciated. When and if another typeface comes along that may be more legible than the FHWA Series, we'll go through this same process again. But we do NOT need to experiment with other typefaces until then.
I don't think anyone will argue that a better font for signage could be developed. But in a time of ever tightening budgets who has the time, money, and resources to go through a proper, unbiased, scientific development of a new font, and is it worth it? Until then, I'm going to remain in the camp of if it ain't broken, don't mess with it. Save our highway dollars for fixing potholes and resolving larger traffic safety issues.
Since both fonts are "functionally identical", IMO, cost becomes the next big factor, which is where Clearview loses out.
Since when is Series 2000 Gothic free? It's not an open source, public domain typeface. Sign industry specific software may bundle those fonts with the application. I've seen a couple different companies commercially selling versions of Series 2000 Gothic in the $400-$600 price range.
Since when is Series 2000 Gothic free? It's not an open source, public domain typeface. Sign industry specific software may bundle those fonts with the application. I've seen a couple different companies commercially selling versions of Series 2000 Gothic in the $400-$600 price range.
The Standard Alphabets ("Series 2000 Gothic") are actually freely available as a set of outlines (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSm/Alphabets.pdf) on the MUTCD's website, which anyone with sufficient technical experience can recreate into a font. In the United States (IIRC) typeface designs cannot be copyrighted, but font files can. So while the Standard Alphabets are in the public domain, different implementations exist, such as the official collection (http://www.fhwa.org/en/products/fhwa/fhwa_intro_en.html), Highway Gothic, Blue Highway and Roadgeek 2005, and they can charge as much as they want for their (copyrighted) implementation of the fonts.
Normally when a state changes sign standards, they only apply them to new signs and don't change existing ones.
Of course, I would expect that anything that doesn't presently conform - mainly Clearview negative contract signs (yes, I'm looking at you PA and TX) would have to be changed out as soon as possible.Add DE, MD & VA to that list as well. At least PA has gotten better with using Clearview with restraint among their newer highway sign installations.
(http://i.imgur.com/lVM7Qgv.png)Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface)).
Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface)).
is it just me or does that Pottstown/Morgantown gantry have a lighter weight to the font?
Good to know. I somehow have to wonder if that particular installation was during an initial experimental stage within the state. Similar-vintage BGS' erected in Delaware County & Philly still used Highway Gothic.Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface)).
First saw Clearview on this installation at the north end of Interstate 176 in July 2000:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania300/us-422_eb_at_i-176_nt.jpg)
Thanks Zeffy for the analysis!
Clearview started being used circa 2004 Per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearview_(typeface)).
what is that three-way rotationally symmetric figure at the top of the gravestone? been seeing it in places on this forum.US DOT and Certain state DOTs use that symbol or a variation thereof
what is that three-way rotationally symmetric figure at the top of the gravestone? been seeing it in places on this forum.US DOT and Certain state DOTs use that symbol or a variation thereof
US: (http://americandbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Seal_US_DOT.png)
This particular variant of Clearview was one that came up earlier in the design process (as J N Winkler pointed out).
(http://clearviewhwy.com/_images/researchDesign/DesignDev_01.gif)
I'm guessing this version is the one labeled "Clearview version 1".
it is legally OK to draw up your own OTF Clearview implementation using an existing file as reference, so long as you do not actually directly copy-and-paste (or trace over) anything from the existing file to yours.
it is legally OK to draw up your own OTF Clearview implementation using an existing file as reference, so long as you do not actually directly copy-and-paste (or trace over) anything from the existing file to yours.
is Clearview's description available as a set of curves, similar to how FHWA is available?
I cobbled together Series A based on a lengths-and-radii description from a 1966 manual... I'm pretty sure Clearview has non-circular arcs and thus would require a different description language. (Bezier or similar.)
I couldn't disagree more with the arguments that states should slap whatever font they want on BGSs. The point of the Interstate Highway System was:
An interlocking freeway system throughout the country to improve mobility and infrastructure.
A high speed freeway system designed with consistancy for safety.
The main thing I have with his whole Clearview thing is the Interstate Highway System has a set of design standards for a reason: so you can drive from one side of the country to the other safely at high speeds without trouble reading signs or unusual blind curves or hills. How can you have consistancy with two different fonts on the signs? I understand that I am a road geek and the average person doesn't get offended by Clearview like I do, but the average driver does notice the difference in fonts. More than one person I know that isn't a road geek has noticed the difference between Clearview and Highway Gothic. Now, I agree that it isn't enough for a driver to be so appalled by the change in font that they run off the road and end up upside down in a ditch, but the most wonderful thing about the Interstate Highway System is that it righted all the things the US Highway System and various State Highway Systems got so terribly wrong: it gave the states a template for road design and sign design that will be universal throughout the 50 states and is also idiot proof. It was everything the US Highway System wasn't. And now everyone wants to put whatever font you feel like on signs?
Clearview highway font not clear enough for Grays Harbor
Neil Gaffney, Public Affairs Specialist for the Federal Highway Administration tells KXRO, “We plan on rescinding the interim approval altogether and are not approving further use of the font anywhere going forward.”
Assuming that these reports are indeed true, how long after the FHWA officially revokes the interim authorization can we expect new Clearview signs to stop going up?
I have an suspicion that many agencies will keep designing Clearview signs well after the interim authorization is withdrawn either because they have a lot invested in its use (e.g., design templates) or out of sheer incompetence.
but it will certainly be a problem not just for Texas but also for Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.And Vermont. FHWA series guide signs are quite rare in that state now. It will be a shame to see it go there. VTrans is one agency that made clearview look beautiful.
It cannot go back to all-uppercase because, as of the 2009 edition, that no longer complies with the MUTCD. This problem will not apply to states that took out Clearview authorizations but didn't convert to Clearview on their state highway systems (Kansas and Utah fall into this category), but it will certainly be a problem not just for Texas but also for Arizona, Michigan, Oklahoma, Virginia, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
KRXO radio out of Grays Harbor County, Washington
To my knowledge, it is not. Presumably such a description would have been added to the SHS book if Clearview were endorsed as the recommended font in the MUTCD. It is, of course, possible to derive such things manually, as Michael Adams did, but that would naturally require much more effort.
"It gave the states a template for road design and sign design that will be universal throughout the 50 states and is also idiot proof." And yet here we are talking about how idiots failed to follow it. The federal government exists to arbitrate differences between the states, not impose standards on all of them. And despite setting these standards, this very forum is loaded with examples of gross violations of those standards.
Years ago I downloaded a PDF from TX DOT called "CTSEng.pdf" which was a Clearview based supplement for the Texas own flavor of the 2006 MUTCD. It had 20 pages worth of spacing tables and a lot more pages showing closer views of the letter forms. It's an encrypted & password protected PDF; you would have the break the password block to be able to gain access to the letter forms. And only then you would have to do something like place/link the PDF file in Adobe Illustrator and "flatten transparancy" to convert the embedded fonts to outlines. Otherwise all the type would revert into Myriad Pro.
To my knowledge, it is not. Presumably such a description would have been added to the SHS book if Clearview were endorsed as the recommended font in the MUTCD. It is, of course, possible to derive such things manually, as Michael Adams did, but that would naturally require much more effort.
I still have the "official" ClearviewHwy fonts that I bought directly from the vendor if anyone wants them.
Here's the fundamental problem: you can't have non-designers doing sign design work and expect proper attention to details, proper layout fundamentals and proper quality control over the sign fabrication process. Having a manual like the MUTCD is fine. But you still need people with visual oriented problem solving skills to put it into action.
I still have the "official" ClearviewHwy fonts that I bought directly from the vendor if anyone wants them.
I have that font package you uploaded when I first joined. Thanks for that by the way! I noticed the link is long dead now though.
Neat, thanks for rehosting. I don't run my web server anymore so the old URL is naturally dead. I have a similar ZIP archive with ClearviewHwy + Saa + PIXsymbols2002, the latter being the best implementation of the FHWA Series fonts I've come across. (Although Saa has the advantage of including Series A, it seems to be based on pre-2000s guidelines).I still have the "official" ClearviewHwy fonts that I bought directly from the vendor if anyone wants them.
I have that font package you uploaded when I first joined. Thanks for that by the way! I noticed the link is long dead now though.
I've since rehosted said package here: http://g3sf.x10.mx/sammdot/fonts/Quillz-RoadFonts.zip
I've tried recreating Interstate shields in Illustrator, and a lot of the specs featured in the SHS simply make no sense from my perspective. I've often wanted to make some signs that featured Clearview, but it's hard to do so, at least for me.
I'm referring specifically to some of the posted specs in the SHS. Most of them are easy enough to understand, size of legend, its placement in relation to the top or bottom, but then they simply point to various curves without any actual explanation of the exact angle, etc. Making them hard to recreate in Illustrator and other vector programs. Which is why I'm wondering if things like GuideSIGN are the best for making actual shields.I've tried recreating Interstate shields in Illustrator, and a lot of the specs featured in the SHS simply make no sense from my perspective. I've often wanted to make some signs that featured Clearview, but it's hard to do so, at least for me.
I've been able to recreate Interstate, US and California shields (the only ones available with RSM so far) from specifications in the SHSM and the California Coded Sign Specs (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/control-devices/specs.htm) with no problems so far. I think for some of them don't quite line up, if that's what you mean (I had that problem with the 2dCA shield).
How is it hard for you to make Clearview signs?
Is GuideSIGN and SignCAD the best way to design highway shields? I've tried recreating Interstate shields in Illustrator, and a lot of the specs featured in the SHS simply make no sense from my perspective. I've often wanted to make some signs that featured Clearview, but it's hard to do so, at least for me.Man, the best way I've found: The dimensions are there in the MUTCD. Make your own shields to those dimensions. Get GuidSIGN to spit out the number in the height you want, then manually position it on the sign per MUTCD/Standard Highway Signs.
Is GuidSIGN and SignCAD the best way to design highway shields? I've tried recreating Interstate shields in Illustrator, and a lot of the specs featured in the SHS simply make no sense from my perspective. I've often wanted to make some signs that featured Clearview, but it's hard to do so, at least for me.
The only shields that have caused me problems so far are the Nevada state highway marker and the Minnesota county pentagon, and that is because both specify certain angles in a way that involves calculating points of tangency, which is very difficult to do analytically in these particular cases.I'm a competent user of CAD. If you send me the specs, maybe I can draft the markers, and send you drawings with more explicit dimensions, or as SVG.
I'm a competent user of CAD. If you send me the specs, maybe I can draft the markers, and send you drawings with more explicit dimensions, or as SVG.
I'm a competent user of CAD. If you send me the specs, maybe I can draft the markers, and send you drawings with more explicit dimensions, or as SVG.
I think SVG would probably be best for sharing.
The Nevada DOT guide-sign marker is available here (PDF page 2):
http://nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Safety_Engineering/2006_TSS_Guide.pdf
The MnDOT county pentagon drawing is available here (PDF page 16):
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/signsmanual/standardsigns-2013-mseries.pdf
Are you sure that file was specific to Texas and not the FHWA Clearview supplement? The filenames are the same. The FHWA Clearview supplement presents the Clearview letters as rasters, probably to prevent glyph copying.
Yeah you can - they use GuidSIGN and SignCAD anyway, which makes it incredibly easy to design the signs. I think I read that SignCAD has a problem with Clearview and usually barfs out Arial instead.
I have had reasonably good luck drawing guide-sign markers for Wisconsin, Oregon, and Minnesota state highways in CorelDRAW directly from the specs. The only shields that have caused me problems so far are the Nevada state highway marker and the Minnesota county pentagon, and that is because both specify certain angles in a way that involves calculating points of tangency, which is very difficult to do analytically in these particular cases.
Michael Adams did a good job with his Road Geek fonts. I don't know if he had access to Adobe Illustrator. Illustrator would have done away with any need of rasterizing any font outlines. If a PDF has embedded fonts not installed on the computer viewing them the PDF can be "placed" into an Illustrator file (with the "link" box checked). The fonts will remain intact. The "flatten transparency" dialog box can be used to convert those font letter forms into vector outlines. Using that method Adams could have extracted perfect copies of the font outlines. However, he would have still had to go through the work of getting them placed properly according to baselines, cap height lines, etc.
Michael Adams did a good job with his Road Geek fonts. I don't know if he had access to Adobe Illustrator. Illustrator would have done away with any need of rasterizing any font outlines. If a PDF has embedded fonts not installed on the computer viewing them the PDF can be "placed" into an Illustrator file (with the "link" box checked). The fonts will remain intact.
I do like Adobe Illustrator for its superior ability on opening & editing PDF files. Illustrator does a much better job of opening & creating SVG files.
I am sure he was aware that he could have extracted the glyphs much as you describe, but made a conscious decision not to do so in order to head off copyright issues.
Inkscape is the SVG editor (and it's open source!). It complies to the SVG 1.1 specification.
Better than? CorelDRAW, perhaps; Inkscape, not at all. Inkscape is the SVG editor (and it's open source!). It complies to the SVG 1.1 specification. Illustrator, on the other hand, exports SVG with some sort of Adobe metadata, which renders it invalid when opened in Inkscape (this came up elsewhere on the forum). The browser should render it with few to no problems though.
Right. You can't extract the glyphs directly (which is what Bobby5280 is suggesting), but you can rasterize then vectorize it again.
Quote from: SammiRight. You can't extract the glyphs directly (which is what Bobby5280 is suggesting), but you can rasterize then vectorize it again.
No. I didn't say anything about rasterizing the font glyphs. Using the Flatten Transparency dialog box in Adobe Illustrator you can convert the embedded fonts in any PDF to vector-based outlines. You place the PDF in linked form and then use the options in the flatten transparency command to convert the fonts into outlines. No rasterization is needed.
Inkscape is what I recommend to so many amateur graphic designers looking to design a company logo or other similar items without having to spend a bunch of money on professional level graphics software. It pisses me off to no end how so many so-called graphic designers use Adobe Photoshop or other pixel-based image editors to create a company's logo. Their client is royally screwed when he has to make the stupid, clunky, pixel-based "logo" work in something like a lighted channel letter sign. Any logo's base version should be 100% vector and even vinyl plotter/routing table friendly. Vinyl cutters, routing tables and neon tube path making software don't understand pixels. They only deal with vector-based paths.
Quote from: SammiRight. You can't extract the glyphs directly (which is what Bobby5280 is suggesting), but you can rasterize then vectorize it again.
No. I didn't say anything about rasterizing the font glyphs. Using the Flatten Transparency dialog box in Adobe Illustrator you can convert the embedded fonts in any PDF to vector-based outlines. You place the PDF in linked form and then use the options in the flatten transparency command to convert the fonts into outlines. No rasterization is needed.
Exactly. You can't do that. What you can do is rasterize and retrace the glyphs.
Nipping this in the bud: one in fact can copy the glyph outlines without rasterizing and retracing them, but this may violate the original font foundry's copyright, so if they have good lawyers, then no you “can't” do that.
Reminds me of my years prior to high school where I first took a vector graphics class. My old process was opening up Photoshop and making a 6000x6000 image just in case I had to blow it up big-time. Of course, that whole concept is fatally flawed, so I'm glad that I now know better.
So would you say, Microsoft's current and old logos are GOOD examples of logo designing?
So would you say, Microsoft's current and old logos are GOOD examples of logo designing? The old Microsoft logo used Helvetica Black I believe, and had no fancy effects to it. In fact, it probably was made in a vector application, though I'm not sure what was available back then...
Some design experts have gone as far as saying Microsoft's new logo and UI design in Windows 8, Windows Phone, etc. one-upped Apple in terms of applying a more up to date look to its products. And that's kind of amazing considering how many design people are ardent Mac fans. Microsoft didn't invent "flat design" (even Google was doing some of this stuff before Microsoft picked up on it). But Microsoft pursued this look before it arguably became a fad. Apple had to be dragged away from its 1999 era skeuomorphism look in OSX and iOS kicking and screaming.
Holy crap, why do Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons pretend these older two logos never existed?
How is the flat look more up-to-date?
Some design experts have gone as far as saying Microsoft's new logo and UI design in Windows 8, Windows Phone, etc. one-upped Apple in terms of applying a more up to date look to its products. And that's kind of amazing considering how many design people are ardent Mac fans. Microsoft didn't invent "flat design" (even Google was doing some of this stuff before Microsoft picked up on it). But Microsoft pursued this look before it arguably became a fad. Apple had to be dragged away from its 1999 era skeuomorphism look in OSX and iOS kicking and screaming.
How is the flat look more up-to-date? Skeuomorphism really goes back at least to the Mac OSes of the 1980s; originally UI elements were ugly black-and-white, but as the hardware advanced, the skeuomorphs improved. I understand that there is a sense of "we don't need 3D UI elements to show that we are high tech" now that the technology is mature. This person's honest opinion is that Windows 8 is ugly, iOS7 is ugly, and many applications of the flat look aren't that pretty.
- Good design is unobtrusive
- Good design is long lasting
- Good design is as little design as possible
How is the flat look more up-to-date? Skeuomorphism really goes back at least to the Mac OSes of the 1980s; originally UI elements were ugly black-and-white, but as the hardware advanced, the skeuomorphs improved. I understand that there is a sense of "we don't need 3D UI elements to show that we are high tech" now that the technology is mature. This person's honest opinion is that Windows 8 is ugly, iOS7 is ugly, and many applications of the flat look aren't that pretty.
Another serious problem with skeuomorphism is the illustrative symbols and textures it uses may be irrelevant with many viewers. For instance it might make sense to put an image of a Rolodex into a contacts list within an e-mail application, but there's lots of people who have never had to use one of those analog devices. Film strip symbols are used all over the place in photography and video applications. Again, there is a huge number of photographers and videographers that have never used film. Apple used a wood book shelf in its e-books app. Meanwhile millions of Americans are getting rid of space hogging physical books and book shelves.
I'd rather see the font choice opened up and fixes made to improve legibility than to wholesale discontinue its use.
Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)
Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)
/me points towards Québec
They don't. :bigass:
Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)
/me points towards Québec
They don't. :bigass:
Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)
/me points towards Québec
They don't. :bigass:
Why would you need a complete set of accents for FHWA Series fonts when the MUTCD disallows the use of diacritics on road signs? (Hell, you're not even allowed to put the apostrophe in "Tysons Corner".)
Word messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.
Relevant MUTCD chapter and verse is 2A.13¶4:QuoteWord messages should not contain periods, apostrophes, question marks, ampersands, or other punctuation or characters that are not letters, numerals, or hyphens unless necessary to avoid confusion.
Rationale is not given, but I would assume it's because the elements are small enough that they distract rather than aid comprehension at speed. It is probably along the same lines as USPS standards that require dropping punctuation and diacritics, as well.
Right, but the FHWA fonts were designed by the American government for American road signs. It's not likely that they would find it a good use of time and money to develop bells and whistles that the font's target audience is barred from using.
Back on the topic of Clearview: Even if it dies, which seems likely, this probably isn't the end of typeface legibility improvement proposals. Eventually someone will learn from what Clearview did well and what it did poorly and draw another typeface that purports to improve on the old font. And FHWA will have what it learned from Clearview and be able to test it more thoroughly before approving it. So the next big font will probably have a marked improvement over both FHWA Series and Clearview before we ever see it.
Development of an up to date traffic sign type family doesn't necessarily have to be a government funded effort, or even controlled by the government for that matter. There are numerous type foundries and independent type designers who could craft a contemporary family that both looks better and functions better than FHWA Series Gothic and Clearview Highway.
This really isn't complicated.
1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.
2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.
3. FHWA approves or rejects the submitted fonts.
4. States and local jurisdictions select from the approved fonts.
The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now). Pretty much everyone can agree that this is a proper function of government and a proper balance between government regulation and free enterprise.
There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.
For some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.
Also, I've edited jbnv's list:
1. FHWA publishes a list of rules and requirements for fonts designed to be used for highway and roadway signage.
2. Private developers develop fonts and submit them to FHWA for approval.
3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts
You could always outsource the testing. Of course, that would be like outsourcing IIHS crash testing.
QuoteYou could always outsource the testing. Of course, that would be like outsourcing IIHS crash testing.
Pretty much all of the development and testing of Clearview was outsourced.
Really. Pennsylvania Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA. Texas Transportation Institute--not part of FHWA. Meeker and Associates--not part of FHWA.
This gets to another point in support of the unlikelihood of FHWA sponsoring a type competition: Clearview was wished on it in the first place. And now that Clearview has failed, FHWA now has fresh arguments it can cite in resisting rollout of new standard typefaces: they must not only be better than the existing FHWA series, they must also be hit-it-out-of-the-park better.
Just so we are clear, Ron's reaction after looking down was me realizing that you are correct. :D
The FHWA needs to learn the art of refinement.
The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now).There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.
3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts
... the main problem is that it is difficult to deploy, requires systemwide changes in order to maintain uniform appearance of guide signs ...
... the MUTCD already requires uniformity ...
And now that Clearview has blown up in everyone's faces, who is going to fund the R&D?
Just so we are clear, Ron's reaction after looking down was me realizing that you are correct. :D
Thanks--I wasn't sure I had understood the intended meaning, so I played it straight.
JN Winkler already cleared up for me previously that a third party determines the best font. Sorry. :cheers:3. FHWA tests fonts for real-world use ($$)
4. FHWA selects best font from tested fonts
You miss the point of my suggestion. FWHA sets the requirements based on what we have learned over decades of transportation. The market, not the government, determines what is the "best" font.
The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil (it should be essentially the cost of FHWA now).There's something I am missing here...how is the cost "essentially nil?" Are said private developers creating these fonts out of the goodness of their hearts? Sure, there would probably be a competition similar to defense product development (e.g., the Humvee replacement), but the winner(s) ultimately end up getting paid via a contract for production. Creating and properly testing a font doesn't come cheap.
Try reading and comprehending the entire post before responding. "The cost to the taxpayer is essentially nil." I wasn't talking about the development cost of the fonts.
Since you mentioned it, yes, people can and do develop stuff for free (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software).
Development costs aside, I still stand by my original query, since there still are other costs associated with switching fonts...acquiring licenses, creating/changing dies (for those states who still use demountable copy), to name a few.
For some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.
Quote from: jakeFor some graphic designers, seeing their font across all road signs would be reward enough.
Not for the amount of work this kind of type family would require. The best type designers wouldn't be doing that kind of work for free at all in the first place. The honor of getting published only thrills amateurs. Professionals get paid. If such a type family would be expertly designed it would require an expert or experts to do it. If a type designer is making any fonts for free he's going to be doing so as a "loss leader" to get people to buy other fonts -for instance making a couple weights of a "super font" free to download but charging a handsome fee for all the other weights in the type family.
Field testing with life size sign panels can be expensive, especially if you're going to use the same materials required in real highway signs. Only a big company, like Google, could stomach eating the costs of developing fonts such as that to make open source or, in this case, submit to the FHWA for approval or rejection. And in Google's case, they would only develop something like a new highway sign type family if they could tie it into Google Earth & Google Maps. No individual type designer could go to those lengths essentially for free with zero guarantee for any payment on the back end. He would go broke.
Quote from: DaBigEDevelopment costs aside, I still stand by my original query, since there still are other costs associated with switching fonts...acquiring licenses, creating/changing dies (for those states who still use demountable copy), to name a few.
Modern signs don't need anything like stock letter dies, not unless you're doing something like making cast metal letters or injection molded letters (which no highway signs use). Sign designers create vector-based sign layouts. Those vector-based art files are then used to create flat letters on computer driven routing tables or vinyl cutters. I've seen a lot of big green signs where the legends have been made only of cut vinyl applied directly to the green sign panel with no separate metal pieces involved. The problem is some of these signs have the vinyl letters slapped onto the panel one letter at a time.
My thought with the whole "reward enough" scenario would be, in a case where Google decides to design the next highway font, they already have damn near 50,000 employees. They take a small group of employees that are experts in typeface design (such as those who designed Roboto) and simple re-assign them. They would still be getting paid, but by Google in the form of the annual salary they are already contractually assured. Of course, the issue is when Google get's compensated. Larry Page probably doesn't want Google taking a hit in the nuts just because the FHWA wants a *better* font.
One thing I can say in Roboto's defense: it covers the bases a hell of a lot better than many more popular typefaces. Roboto has a satisfactory number of weights from Thin to Black, Each weight has more than 1000 glyphs, covering extended Latin, Cyrillic & Greek ranges, diacriticals on capital letters and native small capital letters, fractions and a complete set of inferior & superior numerals. I don't get as many of those features out of Helvetica Neue or Gotham.
The latest version of Arial has a huge wealth of typographical features (it goes well past the features set in Roboto). Still, I consider Arial poison for the eyeballs. I refuse to design any signs using it unless it is strictly specified by the customer.
Arial...why does it exist?
Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
Quote from: Scott5114Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
It would be all about branding. Like I said, it would take one hell of a great typeface family to get the job done. But what if a company like Google, or Adobe or somebody else could manage such a thing?
A truly great type family can be a big money maker. And not only that, it can have a huge impact on the visual look of advertising. Helvetica is really one of the greatest typefaces ever designed, but it is also widely despised for its amount of over use all over the place. Graphics people set up funny challenges to people to see if they can cross certain urban environments without encountering Helvetica. That's a testament to the greatness of that typeface.
Quote from: Scott5114Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
It would be all about branding. Like I said, it would take one hell of a great typeface family to get the job done. But what if a company like Google, or Adobe or somebody else could manage such a thing?
A truly great type family can be a big money maker. And not only that, it can have a huge impact on the visual look of advertising. Helvetica is really one of the greatest typefaces ever designed, but it is also widely despised for its amount of over use all over the place. Graphics people set up funny challenges to people to see if they can cross certain urban environments without encountering Helvetica. That's a testament to the greatness of that typeface.
Quote from: Scott5114Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
It would be all about branding. Like I said, it would take one hell of a great typeface family to get the job done. But what if a company like Google, or Adobe or somebody else could manage such a thing?
A truly great type family can be a big money maker. And not only that, it can have a huge impact on the visual look of advertising. Helvetica is really one of the greatest typefaces ever designed, but it is also widely despised for its amount of over use all over the place. Graphics people set up funny challenges to people to see if they can cross certain urban environments without encountering Helvetica. That's a testament to the greatness of that typeface.
Maybe so, but there are ways to spend money on branding that have a far greater ROI than developing a typeface and getting it put on road signs.
Actually, most companies with a bespoke typeface don't want anyone else using it, since part of the reason for having their own typeface is that it makes them unique.
The Catull type family is not free/open source. There may be a couple web sites offering free downloads of Catull. Those fonts are either pirated or clones of some sort. The Berthold type foundry owns the rights to Catull. Their latest version of Catull is the Catull BQ family, released in 2006 in OpenType format. Adobe used to sell an older Postscript Type 1 version, Catull BE, when they were licensing Berthold fonts for Adobe Font Folio and their graphics applications back in the 1990s.
Quote from: Scott5114Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
It would be all about branding. Like I said, it would take one hell of a great typeface family to get the job done. But what if a company like Google, or Adobe or somebody else could manage such a thing?
A truly great type family can be a big money maker. And not only that, it can have a huge impact on the visual look of advertising. Helvetica is really one of the greatest typefaces ever designed, but it is also widely despised for its amount of over use all over the place. Graphics people set up funny challenges to people to see if they can cross certain urban environments without encountering Helvetica. That's a testament to the greatness of that typeface.
Maybe so, but there are ways to spend money on branding that have a far greater ROI than developing a typeface and getting it put on road signs.
Actually, most companies with a bespoke typeface don't want anyone else using it, since part of the reason for having their own typeface is that it makes them unique.
Google's brand (the most valuable in the world (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-valuable-brands-in-the-world-2014-5#1-google-20)) is based on their products, not their typeface choices (IMO); the only two fonts they use, Roboto and Catull, are both available for free. Based on past practices, I don't see Google designing a new font, with emphases on distant readability, and not letting anyone else use it.
I'm not saying Google just floats with the breeze and lets companies basically steal their ideas, but generally speaking, Google isn't that litigious, and as such, they wouldn't want to develop something that the open-source community would not be able to freely use.
I think Google could see some value in creating a new highway signs typeface that it could then use internally to make its maps & navigation software look more authentic. Some navigation apps for smart phones, in-dash systems, etc. try to mimic the look of big green highway signs and other traffic sign features in the interface. But they often do a poor job of it, delivering results that are either just look...
Quote from: Scott5114Let's be realistic though... Google has little way of benefiting from a road sign font. Sinking the cost of designing and testing a font and getting FHWA on board just so their products match a sign? How would that end up making them money?
It would be all about branding. Like I said, it would take one hell of a great typeface family to get the job done. But what if a company like Google, or Adobe or somebody else could manage such a thing?
A truly great type family can be a big money maker. And not only that, it can have a huge impact on the visual look of advertising. Helvetica is really one of the greatest typefaces ever designed, but it is also widely despised for its amount of over use all over the place. Graphics people set up funny challenges to people to see if they can cross certain urban environments without encountering Helvetica. That's a testament to the greatness of that typeface.
Maybe so, but there are ways to spend money on branding that have a far greater ROI than developing a typeface and getting it put on road signs.
Actually, most companies with a bespoke typeface don't want anyone else using it, since part of the reason for having their own typeface is that it makes them unique.
Google's brand (the most valuable in the world (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-valuable-brands-in-the-world-2014-5#1-google-20)) is based on their products, not their typeface choices (IMO); the only two fonts they use, Roboto and Catull, are both available for free. Based on past practices, I don't see Google designing a new font, with emphases on distant readability, and not letting anyone else use it.
I'm not saying Google just floats with the breeze and lets companies basically steal their ideas, but generally speaking, Google isn't that litigious, and as such, they wouldn't want to develop something that the open-source community would not be able to freely use.
Right, but Google developing a road sign font still makes no business sense. Roboto was developed because Google needed a font for Android and Google Maps. It filled a need the company had. Google does not have any road sign font needs currently, and they have no possible reason for expanding into that market other than "it would be neat if they had the same font on Google Maps and on signs". It would be a lot easier for Google to just license Interstate or Clearview if they wanted to do that. Developing a font and getting FHWA on board isn't a good use of money.
We plan on rescinding the interim approval altogether and are not approving further use of the font anywhere going forward.
Spotted on H.B.'s facebook feed:
http://kxro.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/clearview-highway-font-not-clear-enough-for-grays-harbor/
From KXRO radio in Aberdeen, Washington: Gray's Harbor County was apparently denied a request to use Clearview, and the local FHwA Public Affairs officer quoted:QuoteWe plan on rescinding the interim approval altogether and are not approving further use of the font anywhere going forward.
Spotted on H.B.'s facebook feed:
http://kxro.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/clearview-highway-font-not-clear-enough-for-grays-harbor/
From KXRO radio in Aberdeen, Washington: Gray's Harbor County was apparently denied a request to use Clearview, and the local FHwA Public Affairs officer quoted:QuoteWe plan on rescinding the interim approval altogether and are not approving further use of the font anywhere going forward.
I'd say this may be the end of Clearview. If interim approval is rescinded, then all new signage installs in states with Clearview may well indeed be in FHWA font going forward. Clearview may exist for several years afterward (as does button copy currently) as the signs age, but when they are replaced, they will most likely be replaced with FHWA signage.
I am actually not convinced all state FHWA offices will enforce usage of the FHWA series in new signing plans after the Clearview interim approval is rescinded. I think some of them have developed Stockholm syndrome in relation to the DOTs they are supposed to regulate.
I am actually not convinced all state FHWA offices will enforce usage of the FHWA series in new signing plans after the Clearview interim approval is rescinded.
I am actually not convinced all state FHWA offices will enforce usage of the FHWA series in new signing plans after the Clearview interim approval is rescinded.
Not to wax political, but I see a general and accelerating trend of states disregarding federal mandates, in some cases explicitly through legislation. Some states that switched to Clearview might switch back. However, others may keep using it for one of the following reasons:...2) Our new signs look better than the old ones. 3) For Pete's sake, the feds dictate what fon we have to use on our signs?
1) We bought this thing, we're going to keep use it.
I am actually not convinced all state FHWA offices will enforce usage of the FHWA series in new signing plans after the Clearview interim approval is rescinded.
Not to wax political, but I see a general and accelerating trend of states disregarding federal mandates, in some cases explicitly through legislation. Some states that switched to Clearview might switch back. However, others may keep using it for one of the following reasons: 1) We bought this thing, we're going to keep use it. 2) Our new signs look better than the old ones. 3) For Pete's sake, the feds dictate what fon we have to use on our signs?
I am actually not convinced all state FHWA offices will enforce usage of the FHWA series in new signing plans after the Clearview interim approval is rescinded.
Not to wax political, but I see a general and accelerating trend of states disregarding federal mandates, in some cases explicitly through legislation. Some states that switched to Clearview might switch back. However, others may keep using it for one of the following reasons:...2) Our new signs look better than the old ones. 3) For Pete's sake, the feds dictate what fon we have to use on our signs?
I agree completely, but I'm wondering if it costs extra to move back to FHWA? Like Pennsylvania, right? They have and continue to use Clearview, and a majority of signs are in it now. Would it cost them extra to move back to FHWA? And that's a serious question, too...I don't have any idea.1) We bought this thing, we're going to keep use it.
I remember when I asked WSDOT if they planned to move to Clearview, and besides them waiting for the FHWA to rescind interim approval, they told me the cost of the licences was extraordinary. I can't even imagine what Pennsylvania has spent on Clearview so far; going back to FHWA would be (monetarily) ridiculous at this point. I'd imagine Pennsylvania will continue to use it for a long time.
It is sad that DOTs spent so much money on ultimately-useless Clearview licenses, but those are sunk costs and spending any more on Clearview at this point is merely throwing good money after bad. On the plus side, font licenses are typically sold on a per-user basis, so the volume of Clearview signage doesn't correlate with how much was spent. (Actually, from an accounting point of view, Pennsylvania/Texas/Michigan/et al. probably came away with lower Clearview costs compared to other states since the cost of the licenses was amortized across so many different signage projects.)
I was thinking with the introduction of Clearview, that Pennsylvania sped up sign replacement, and in order to do that, hired more people to make signs, and in turn purchased more licences of Clearview than a typical state. Of course, that's a hunch and probably not the case. I am not at all familiar with Pennsylvania and their sign-replacement strategy and chances are good that I'm completely off.
I'm surprised how they show Clearview on the ordering page in ways that were never approved on an interim basis (nevermind a permanent basis) with dark lettering on lighter backgrounds. Seems like deceptive advertising to say it's "The only federally approved alternative to existing FHWA Standard Alphabets for Traffic Control Devices" without mentioning the severe limitations on proper approved use (not numerals, not negative contrast, not all-caps, and so on).
(http://2pld4k1seiavz1ja53rzub4o0p.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/clearviewHwy_header1.png)
Kentucky uses demountable copy on its guide signs, but they are all done by contractors. I know that the signs for the new exit on I-71 near Kentucky Speedway were erected before Kentucky started using Clearview. The signs originally used only a route marker with no road name or destination town. However, later on the destination "Vevay, In." was added to the signs in Clearview.
I always got the impression that Michigan was the biggest user of Clearview and had replaced perfectly good signs with Clearview signs just for the sake of using Clearview.
Did Canadian research show the same results (like Series C being MORE legible than its Clearview rough equivalent) as research in USA? If not, and they are basing Clearview adoption on American research, then they are being very sloppy.
It strikes me as incomplete or misleading on the Clearview sellers' part if they present it as acceptable in all uses when it is not approved in the USA for anything but mixed-case destination legend. Showing the Warning and Construction ones and sweeping it under the rug that those uses are not allowed in the USA seems unethical or at least shady.
Purpose:
This Technical Circular documents recent updates to new Font standards used on all classes of MoT signs (Regulatory, Warning, Information, Guide, etc.) and reflective Sheeting standards used on guide and custom signs.
Background:
The Clearview font family will be the Ministry of Transportation’s (MoT) new standard for text lettering on signs. The Clearview Type Font System was developed to increase the legibility and recognition of road signs. The new typeface created by Clearview Fonts “opens” the shape of individual letters without changing the actual letter height or width. This change provides a typical 20% improvement in legibility and recognition for road users without the need for larger signs and larger structures. Clearview Fonts will only be used on those Ministry signs utilizing (as a minimum) ASTM Type 9 sheeting material.
ASTM Type 9/3 and Type 9/9 will now be used on all guide and custom signs. ASTM Type 3 and ASTM Type 9 sheeting are sheeting standards similar in performance to 3M’s High Intensity and Diamond Grade sheeting once used exclusively by the Ministry. The higher retro-reflectivity standard will improve night legibility on both shoulder and overhead signs. Another benefit of improved sheeting quality is greater durability against the long term effects of weathering.
Scope and Application:
The most up-to-date MoT sign records that indicate which signs (Regulatory, Warning, Information, Guide, etc.) will be upgraded to the Clearview font family can be found at the following MoT website; http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/geomet/geometsigns.htm
For all OVERHEAD Guide Signs, the new reflectivity level is ASTM Type 9/9. For all SHOULDER-MOUNTED Guide Signs, the new reflectivity level is ASTM Type 9/3. As such, text and graphics will now be cut from ASTM Type 9 sheeting.
Anyone notice the arrow looks like it's straight from the Roadgeek 2005 Arrows (1/2) font? :-D
Hate to be the odd one out, but I think Clearview does add some advantages - mainly, when dealing with "I" vs "l" and with the curls on the bottom. I also think it looks better in mixed case than the standard FHWA alphabets for guide signs and Series D and E(M) signs. However, I still prefer it for Series C and B, especially for distance signs on state highways (Leesville 21, Alexandria 51, etc), and directional signage on your everyday signs.
Hate to be the odd one out, but I think Clearview does add some advantages - mainly, when dealing with "I" vs "l" and with the curls on the bottom. I also think it looks better in mixed case than the standard FHWA alphabets for guide signs and Series D and E(M) signs. However, I still prefer it for Series C and B, especially for distance signs on state highways (Leesville 21, Alexandria 51, etc), and directional signage on your everyday signs.
Where?
mainly, when dealing with "I" vs "l" and with the curls on the bottom
mainly, when dealing with "I" vs "l" and with the curls on the bottomthat's not really a pair that leads to real-world confusion. no one will think "oh, I wonder why they spelled Alexandria with two consecutive uppercase vowels to start".
But then we get lllinois instead of Illinois.
Comparison of how both Clearview and FHWA Series E differentiate between the I and l situation:
Top is Series E, bottom is Clearview 5-W.
the lowercase "w" is ghastly
Comparison of how both Clearview and FHWA Series E differentiate between the I and l situation:
Top is Series E, bottom is Clearview 5-W.
At 75 mph/120 km/h, the bottom is definitely clearer, in my opinion.
Comparison of how both Clearview and FHWA Series E differentiate between the I and l situation:
Top is Series E, bottom is Clearview 5-W.
At 75 mph/120 km/h, the bottom is definitely clearer, in my opinion.
They both make the Is look different from the ls at high speed. Clearview is too much like Transport, IMHO, and is just as ugly as well.
Experimenting in Photoshop isn't the most scientific method, but I can size legends in Clearview and Series Gothic at the same cap height and do a Gaussian blur exercise.
They both make the Is look different from the ls at high speed. Clearview is too much like Transport, IMHO, and is just as ugly as well.
They both make the Is look different from the ls at high speed. Clearview is too much like Transport, IMHO, and is just as ugly as well.Well, we definitely differ there...Transport is my favorite road sign font. Second is DIN 1451. Third, Clearview. Fourth, FHWA.
I have heard from several people that the FHWA fonts are "clunky" or "outdated/less modern" or "ugly", but I've never really heard specifics as to why they feel that way.
Perhaps my preference for Clearview and Transport stems from the fact that I am a software developer and heavy computer user.
I'm with Jake here. I like Clearview. I'd like to see Transport on American signs. I dread the thought of Clearview being removed and replaced with FHWA.They both make the Is look different from the ls at high speed. Clearview is too much like Transport, IMHO, and is just as ugly as well.Well, we definitely differ there...Transport is my favorite road sign font. Second is DIN 1451. Third, Clearview. Fourth, FHWA.
Perhaps my preference for Clearview and Transport stems from the fact that I am a software developer and heavy computer user.
I prefer the FHWA fonts.
(http://i.imgur.com/PZRWvjd.png)
Perhaps my preference for Clearview and Transport stems from the fact that I am a software developer and heavy computer user.
I prefer the FHWA fonts.
(http://i.imgur.com/PZRWvjd.png)
Sometimes I think I'm the only one who does not become apoplectic when Helvetica or Arial or some other font shows up on a road sign.
Last week, someone posted a picture in a Facebook group of US 15 signs in North Carolina with the numbers in Franklin Gothic, and the response was immediate and horrified, with people saying Franklin Gothic doesn't belong on road signs.
Why not? Just because we've been conditioned to seeing a certain font on signs doesn't mean that other fonts are wrong, or don't belong.
Which glyphs, in particular, do you feel "need to be fixed"? I have heard from several people that the FHWA fonts are "clunky" or "outdated/less modern" or "ugly", but I've never really heard specifics as to why they feel that way. I will agree that on most series, the lowercase "w" is ghastly, but that's the only character in particular I have noticed as being particularly ugly. It should be noted that while the uppercase characters were designed back in the 1940s, for all series other than E(M), the lower-case letters were designed much more recently (I want to say 2000 or so). I understand that "modern" fonts usually incorporate variance in stroke width as Clearview does, but I would guess that a consistent stroke width is more legible.
Sometimes I think I'm the only one who does not become apoplectic when Helvetica or Arial or some other font shows up on a road sign.
That Illinois example depicts one of my other pet peeves of the Clearview font. IMO, the capital letter should be taller, or at least as tall as the lowercase letters. Not maintaining that relationship cheapens the look of the sign...makes it seem sloppy (or artsy depending on the point of view) and less "official".
Add to that the fact the lowercase letters fall just short of that 3/4 cap letter height requirement.I believe the MUTCD specifies ¾ lowercase loop height. The loop letters (a, c, e, etc.) are 0.75× cap height, and the other lowercase letters (e.g. x) are 0.73× cap height. (See page 9-5 of Standard Alphabets (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSm/Alphabets.pdf).)
Add to that the fact the lowercase letters fall just short of that 3/4 cap letter height requirement.I believe the MUTCD specifies ¾ lowercase loop height. The loop letters (a, c, e, etc.) are 0.75× cap height, and the other lowercase letters (e.g. x) are 0.73× cap height. (See page 9-5 of Standard Alphabets (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSm/Alphabets.pdf).)
Quote from: Scott5114Which glyphs, in particular, do you feel "need to be fixed"? I have heard from several people that the FHWA fonts are "clunky" or "outdated/less modern" or "ugly", but I've never really heard specifics as to why they feel that way. I will agree that on most series, the lowercase "w" is ghastly, but that's the only character in particular I have noticed as being particularly ugly. It should be noted that while the uppercase characters were designed back in the 1940s, for all series other than E(M), the lower-case letters were designed much more recently (I want to say 2000 or so). I understand that "modern" fonts usually incorporate variance in stroke width as Clearview does, but I would guess that a consistent stroke width is more legible.
Glyphs I don't like in FHWA Series Gothic.
In the uppercase range I think the "G" is downright terrible. It stinks in the Series E weight and it only gets worse as the weights get more narrow. The "O" is funky looking. Honestly, the uppercase "S" the only curved letter in FHWA Series Gothic that looks the slightest bit attractive at all. Normally a typeface should retain some harmony in its angled A, K, M, N, V, W, X, Y and Z characters. FHWA Series Gothic has none of this harmony. And in the area where it's most expected, between the V and W characters, the angles have no resemblance to each other. The "v" and "w" relationship is better in the lowercase range, but too many of the lowercase letters have all sorts of clunky, crooked looking issues. Overall, it's just a butt-ugly looking typeface. Familiarity and nostalgia are the only factors helping it.
Some people here like to take pot shots at Font Bureau's Interstate type family, but all of its curved letters are way better drawn than those in FHWA Series Gothic. The V & W relationship still kind of stinks. But even Interstate's numerals look better. Unfortunately Interstate is not a workable substitute for FHWA Series Gothic. It's not so much to do with the typeface having improper spacing as much as it does with it lacking all the appropriate widths from very condensed to semi-extended.
In terms of aesthetics, Clearview Highway easily has FHWA Series Gothic beat hands down in terms of glyph harmony. While there is a lot of nostalgia reserved for the 1950's era typeface, technically and artistically it is inferior to Clearview.
The numerals are the only thing going for FHWA Series Gothic. And even there, not all the numerals are all that great. The "2" is pretty weird on that curve down towards the flat terminal on the bottom. The "6" is pretty odd looking at any weight. The "8" is out of balance with its squished top oval and the round bottom oval.
However, if the powers that be want FHWA Series Gothic to truly perform at Clearview levels they will need to completely redraw that type family and deliver new "cuts" of it. The current cuts kind of suck. And they're missing a lot of features. Add to that the fact the lowercase letters fall just short of that 3/4 cap letter height requirement. If they want the lowercase letters to be something like 7/8 the cap letter height like Clearview they'll really have to redraw the whole thing. If they go to that trouble they might as well extend the character range to include a variety of fraction sets, native small capitals, foreign language support and more like most other contemporary type families are doing now.
Also, I think FHWA Series probably has a leg up on the weird typeface (called Transact) used to print slot machine tickets...
(http://i.imgur.com/khV4fVO.png)
The thermal printing process cleans it up a bit; the raw TTF letterforms are much uglier.
That actually looks like a horizontally stretched Series B.
This is some very good information, and useful. Thank you. I can definitely see a lot of the things you mention with some experimentation in Inkscape. It would be trivial to ensure the X/Y pair match (just lop off the bottom half of an X and add a stem for a new Y, which doesn't look too out-of-place).
FHWA "K" is downright quirky; I've never seen a K that looks like that any other typeface.
However, some of these criticisms would apply to other popular typefaces, including Helvetica,
As mentioned before, though, FHWA cannot do many of these things because they do not create a software implementation of the fonts. They merely offer the characters in PDF form and spacing tables, and it's up to professional type foundries to create a TTF/OTF file from this specification.
This is some very good information, and useful. Thank you. I can definitely see a lot of the things you mention with some experimentation in Inkscape. It would be trivial to ensure the X/Y pair match (just lop off the bottom half of an X and add a stem for a new Y, which doesn't look too out-of-place).
this is actually the case with BPR 1926 (the old block font).QuoteFHWA "K" is downright quirky; I've never seen a K that looks like that any other typeface.
see again: BPR 1926, and some of the actual implementations. I think 1948 is identical to one of the more popular 1926 variants. I will have to check.
and here's where I lose you. am I the only one that finds Helvetica to be positively garish? never mind the tiny-to-moderate differences between Helvetica and Arial and the other ones in that family - I even think Clearview looks a lot better than Helvetica.
These days the specs are just vector objects in a PDF.QuoteAs mentioned before, though, FHWA cannot do many of these things because they do not create a software implementation of the fonts. They merely offer the characters in PDF form and spacing tables, and it's up to professional type foundries to create a TTF/OTF file from this specification.
I have seen lengths-and-radii specifications of all the uppercase series (A-F), and the lowercase EM. so there is definitely would be a canonical implementation - if it weren't for the fact that the lengths and radii are occasionally overspecified and contradictory. the only glyphs I've ever constructed from these definitions are Series A uppercase and numbers: I had a hell of a time with "8" and used the drawing to resolve the issues to a best approximation.
These days the specs are just vector objects in a PDF.
am I the only one that finds Helvetica to be positively garish? never mind the tiny-to-moderate differences between Helvetica and Arial and the other ones in that family - I even think Clearview looks a lot better than Helvetica.
good point-a lot of the FHWA Series fonts' quirks probably trace from the BPR fonts.
Helvetica is useful as a boring default when you want to display text with no extra connotations from the font.
These days the specs are just vector objects in a PDF.are these vector objects plus the spacings sufficient to describe a font file? I feel like they are. thus, it's just a matter of a script to do the translation from one vector description language (PDF + spacings) to another (TTF/OTF). no need for a "professional type foundry"; just someone with coding ability and a day or two of time.
These days too many people love squeezing and stretching fonts out of their original proportions.
Man, that's even worse than some of the elongated Series D numerals on some 3dI-shields in PA I've seen.These days too many people love squeezing and stretching fonts out of their original proportions.
*shudder*
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19792442i1.jpg)
QuoteThese days the specs are just vector objects in a PDF.are these vector objects plus the spacings sufficient to describe a font file? I feel like they are. thus, it's just a matter of a script to do the translation from one vector description language (PDF + spacings) to another (TTF/OTF). no need for a "professional type foundry"; just someone with coding ability and a day or two of time.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19792442i1.jpg)
because I think it's foolish to have two different shield shapes for the same type of route.
Yes. The reason why the shields are different is because the Interstate shield is composed of circular arcs:
(http://i.imgur.com/QqtluCF.png)
(the circles don't match up exactly because I was eyeballing it, but you get the idea)
When you create a bubble shield, those circles are stretched out to ovals. The proper 3di shield is a wider shield that is still composed of circular arcs.
Why is it so important that the arcs be circular? Because, in general, humans perceive circles to be more aesthetically pleasing than ovals. I found this out myself when I was doing a series of playing card images for my company—the arcs were even less noticeable than they were in the Interstate shield, but when I stretched things out into ovals, they looked cheap and 'wrong'. Keep stuff circular, and it looks fine.
There's also the fact that in 1956 when the Interstate shield was designed, there was no stretching of anything. There was no CAD that allowed you to squish everything. Instead, you had the high-tech tools of a compass and straightedge. And a circle is a lot easier to make with a compass than an oval.
I wonder if you came across a similar diagram (intersecting circles) for the US highway cutout sign (like in California). There are enough curved edges that I imagine the sign is also the conjunction of several intersecting circles.
Breaking news: We have a first defection from Clearview. Iowa DOT, which has been using Clearview for several years, just advertised a signing contract (Call 351 in the letting of July 15, 2014) that uses the FHWA series instead.
Speaking of Transport, does anyone know if there is a way to get an official version of that typeface, for free.
Can't speak for J.N. Winkler, but I think that it would come as a major shock...there has been little study comparing the two typefaces, and I would expect that after the Clearview experience, FHWA would want to see such studies before approving another interim approval.
Personally, I wouldn't mind it if they did investigate its use in the US. Transport is a perfectly fine typeface and has proven itself at least as capable as FHWA Series throughout the world.
Speaking of Transport, does anyone know if there is a way to get an official version of that typeface, for free.
Quick & dirty Transport mock up:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/dd05fafc-d818-4a9b-bf47-b97125f426f7_zps47a7791b.png~original)
(The control city legend size turned out a little too big.)
Quick & dirty Transport mock up:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v704/packerfan386/dd05fafc-d818-4a9b-bf47-b97125f426f7_zps47a7791b.png~original)
(The control city legend size turned out a little too big.)
Unrelated to everything you've said thus far, J N Winkler, what would you think if the FHWA granted interim approval of the Transport typeface? I see you've spent time in England.
^ How is any of that different than the Clearview circular FHWA posted detailing where you can and cannot use Clearview, though? If you have to have a circular saying "you have to use the old font in these places" you may as well stick with the old font, because state DOTs will not follow the circular.
Agreed. Multiple fonts on one sign is messy. We need to find a font that can work everywhere. Zeffy, there's no evidence that Transport is less legible in comparison to FHWA in those cases.Ditto. With today's large character sets, it should be fairly simple to have multiple glyph sets within the same font, each set for a particular context (legend, positive contrast, small caps, etc.) Then sign design software could easily use the correct set based on context. And such a font would surely be an aesthetic improvement over FHWA.
To me, I wouldn't mind using Clearview for news print or Internet graphics, but if you're applying Clearview for roadway signage, the FHWA needs to be more clearer on what's accepted and what is not. I believe that what they have put in place doesn't really answer a lot of questions. It's very confusing as of late. Just saying "You can't use Clearview on negative contrast sign panels" doesn't cut it for me. Even if it is explained in manuals, that still does not answer a lot of questions.
Why some states decided to use it is beyond me.
It has been argued upthread that these problems were really a result of unqualified technicians designing and fabricating signs, and that they could have been prevented through some appropriate combination of training, quality assurance, and quality control. I don't disagree with this position, but it takes time and money to put these things in place, and to the extent that these quality problems coincided with Clearview rollout in certain states, jettisoning Clearview is often the cheaper solution for those states.
Another thing that drives me nuts is local agencies goofing up street name signs, based on the rules from the latest MUTCD. All caps legends on street name signs are no longer permitted. New signs have to use mixed case legends, using an approved typeface with lowercase letters at least 75% the height of the uppercase letters.
We have that already. It's called the NCUTCD, and they put out this guide called the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" so you know what meets their approval.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/100_9404-s.JPG)
From my perspective, the sign corners seem almost completely squared off. I can tell they're rounded (just barely), but remarkably less-so than most BGSs.
From my perspective, the sign corners seem almost completely squared off. I can tell they're rounded (just barely), but remarkably less-so than most BGSs.
Especially remarkably so for New York, where the BGSs seem to be more rounded than many places.
The fact that we have the feds dictating font and capitalization rules to local governments on how they sign their streets and roads is what drives me nuts.
How about this? You can choose any font but it can't be deemed silly. Ideally, you would send the typeface to some sort of approval center. That way, you could use basically any sans-serif font but it would filter out the silly "I can't tell if it's serif or sans-serif" type of fonts (such as posted above).
The approval center can't be a city council, either. They'll choose comic sans because they thinks it cute or something.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/100_9404-s.JPG)I have to wonder if that particular BGS is an isolated one-off replacement, fabricated by an independent contractor, for a damaged/destroyed BGS. That could be one reason why it looks somewhat out of spec... particularly w/those squared corners.
Those extremely not-round corner signs remind me of the signs on the lower parts of the Garden State Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.123483,-74.7743,3a,16.1y,69.77h,86.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snG9e3xPuwOA5GuylGrVX-Q!2e0)...
Those extremely not-round corner signs remind me of the signs on the lower parts of the Garden State Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.123483,-74.7743,3a,16.1y,69.77h,86.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snG9e3xPuwOA5GuylGrVX-Q!2e0)...Some of the upper sections of the GSP sport similar-style BGS' (and that ugly-style US shields) as well.
Ultimately, I think cutting costs also has something to do with the misuse and ultimate dismissal of Clearview. There really is no question Clearview, when used properly, is more legible than FHWA Series Gothic. IMHO, these new claims of Clearview having little if any more legibility than Series Gothic stinks of political spin.
I have to wonder if that particular BGS is an isolated one-off replacement, fabricated by an independent contractor, for a damaged/destroyed BGS. That could be one reason why it looks somewhat out of spec... particularly w/those squared corners.There's another one just like it south of the Yonkers barrier. Some signs on I-278 (NYCDOT/NYSDOT Region 11) have the same standard:
QuoteThe fact that we have the feds dictating font and capitalization rules to local governments on how they sign their streets and roads is what drives me nuts.^ I'd prefer this type of standard over letting the local governments pick any font and not being able to read the signs. Less ambiguity while driving is a good thing.
QuoteThe fact that we have the feds dictating font and capitalization rules to local governments on how they sign their streets and roads is what drives me nuts.^ I'd prefer this type of standard over letting the local governments pick any font and not being able to read the signs. Less ambiguity while driving is a good thing.
Do you not have the ability to vote incompetent officials out of your local governments and replace them with more competent people?
BC Font has disappeared
If you don't like the fact that BC uses Arial for route marker digits, how would you feel about Clearview route marker digits in the US?
* Mild variation of typeface at the state level is something that does have historical precedent in the US (LeHay font in Maine, house typefaces in Michigan, Nevada, and many other states, etc.). However, this variation generally coincides with a period of time when traffic design offices were more heavily staffed (in part because primary Interstate construction was then in progress) and signing plans were less likely to have errors.
^ How is any of that different than the Clearview circular FHWA posted detailing where you can and cannot use Clearview, though? If you have to have a circular saying "you have to use the old font in these places" you may as well stick with the old font, because state DOTs will not follow the circular.
Agreed. Multiple fonts on one sign is messy. We need to find a font that can work everywhere. Zeffy, there's no evidence that Transport is less legible in comparison to FHWA in those cases.
In fact, I love Clearview, but only if it's used everywhere. I'm find with sacking Clearview unless we use it everywhere.
Anyways, I found a new FHWA sign on the Thruway. Not sure if this means they're dumping clearview or not. It wouldn't be the first time a NYSDOT-spec sign has found itself on the Thruway, but the tab looks more like something NYSTA would do than anything I've seen from NYSDOT.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i87/100_9404-s.JPG)
Almost all exit tabs in Ontario omit the word "exit" and include the number only. Those that include the word "exit" predate bilingualism.
One can also tell it's not an Ontario sign because both roads are in the same font size. In Ontario, one would be normal-sized, and the other as tiny as the "1/2 mile" line.
Almost all exit tabs in Ontario omit the word "exit" and include the number only. Those that include the word "exit" predate bilingualism.
One can also tell it's not an Ontario sign because both roads are in the same font size. In Ontario, one would be normal-sized, and the other as tiny as the "1/2 mile" line.
I know, but at a quick peripheral glance scrolling down the page, it looked Ontario like, since Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that uses square borders. The other hints you pointed out eliminated that sign being in Ontario quickly. The last hint would be the absence of the period after 'Blvd'.
I did find this though. It's nice to see this one is still around: https://goo.gl/maps/SEF9X