The Worst of Road Signs

[kkt]

It should have been cheaper to order US 395 cutout signs from a nearby California contractor than to order a rectangular sign specially.

But the CA 120 signs are awful.  Shape, font.

[ekt8750]

To be fair, the US 395 shield doesn't look too bad. I actually quite like it.

I believe the signs in contention are the CA 120 non-cutout shields posted above the US 395 shield... the font in particular.

We won't speak of those monstrosities. I dunno how they could get the US 395 sign so right but royally screw up the CA 120 sign. The non-cutout is excusable since I'm sure the NPS is used to most non-interstate routes not using cutout shields but to slap on Helvetica numerals in there is just wrong especially when you already properly uses Series C in the shield below it.

Actually, the NPS isn't beholden to any state MUTCD because they aren't federal, so the US shields are fine. I don't blame them for wanting to manufacture a special set of US shields just for California.

Yeah. My problem was the CA 120 signs. The US 395 sign is beautiful imo.

[Pete from Boston]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

[Quillz]

It vaguely reminds me of the "angular shields" that show up in California from time to time which occur by compressing a 3di shield to 2di width. That look similar that what is going on there, in addition to Series C legend.

[JoePCool14]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

To me it looks like the 93 shield was simply painted on. Pathetic and very awkward.

[PHLBOS]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

To me it looks like the 93 shield was simply painted on. Pathetic and very awkward.

Looks like something was taped near the MA 16 shield.  Not sure what.

Time to dust this off for that LGS.

[kkt]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

To me it looks like the 93 shield was simply painted on. Pathetic and very awkward.

Painted on, freehand with a brush.

[roadman]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

Let's see here.  This photo is appropriate for:

Worst of Road Signs (hand-painted shield)
Damaged Road Signs ('bite' taken from lower right of panel)
Department of Redundancy Department (M5-1R arrow beneath 'Next Right' legend)
Erroneous Road Signs ('East' centered over both MA 16 and I-93 shields)

The lack of an inset border on the MA 16 shield, and the use of a plywood panel, dates the sign from about 1995.  Not sure if that qualifies it as an old sign for the purposes of this forum or not.

[Bruce]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

[SignGeek101]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

[wolfiefrick]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

Looks fine to me too.

[Pete from Boston]

Just outside Medford Square, Medford, Mass.:


That 93 shield is, um, hmmm... making me a little uncomfortable.

Let's see here.  This photo is appropriate for:

Worst of Road Signs (hand-painted shield)
Damaged Road Signs ('bite' taken from lower right of panel)
Department of Redundancy Department (M5-1R arrow beneath 'Next Right' legend)
Erroneous Road Signs ('East' centered over both MA 16 and I-93 shields)

The lack of an inset border on the MA 16 shield, and the use of a plywood panel, dates the sign from about 1995.  Not sure if that qualifies it as an old sign for the purposes of this forum or not.

Black-on-white (redundant) arrow with white-on-green sign.

I hadn't even noticed the EAST over both.  Good catch.  I take 93 East so often I'm desensitized.

[Bruce]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

Looks fine to me too.

The numbers are way too close to the edge of the shield. Padding is there for a reason. Not to mention the font used.

[SignGeek101]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

Looks fine to me too.

The numbers are way too close to the edge of the shield. Padding is there for a reason. Not to mention the font used.

The font is series D FHWA, the MUTCD standard.

The numbers are very close to the edge, however, if they were placed any lower, series C would have had to been used in order for the text to fit. Not that I mind that (I actually like series C for 3DI's without '1's in them), but for 3DI's, series D should always be used per the MUTCD.

I'm not sure about the MUTCD's requirement for text height, but making the numbers smaller would fix the problem.

[jakeroot]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

http://i.imgur.com/yGIcnIi.jpg

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

Looks fine to me too.

The numbers are way too close to the edge of the shield. Padding is there for a reason. Not to mention the font used.

The font is series D FHWA, the MUTCD standard.

The numbers are very close to the edge, however, if they were placed any lower, series C would have had to been used in order for the text to fit. Not that I mind that (I actually like series C for 3DI's without '1's in them), but for 3DI's, series D should always be used per the MUTCD.

I'm not sure about the MUTCD's requirement for text height, but making the numbers smaller would fix the problem.

The numbers would look better with tighter kerning. That would allow you to keep the numbers the same height, but increase the padding.

I wouldn't call this worst-of personally, but it's certainly not great either.

[Zeffy]

I'm not sure about the MUTCD's requirement for text height, but making the numbers smaller would fix the problem.

Current MUTCD specs for shield numerals are 18". However, I personally like California's 15" numerals, which in my opinion fit more properly inside the shield, and allows the use of Series D. I'm not against Series C numerals, but I'd rather see Series D whenever possible.

[myosh_tino]

I'm not sure about the MUTCD's requirement for text height, but making the numbers smaller would fix the problem.

Current MUTCD specs for shield numerals are 18". However, I personally like California's 15" numerals, which in my opinion fit more properly inside the shield, and allows the use of Series D. I'm not against Series C numerals, but I'd rather see Series D whenever possible.

And yet the Standard Highway Signs manual (SHS) specifies 15" Series C numerals for a 45 x 36 (a.k.a. 3-digit) Interstate Route shield.  Funny how the MUTCD and SHS contradict one another.

With regards to California's 3-digit Interstate shields, when used on freeway guide signs, the shield measures 45 x 38 which is 2 inches taller.  The extra height certainly makes it easier to use 15" Series D numerals.  However, for reassurance shields like the one in the photo posted by Bruce, California uses a 42 x 36 inch shield with 12 inch Series D numerals.

[mjb2002]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

I have to say that is a poorly designed sign. Series D on a three-digit sign that does not have a 1 in it looks terrible to me. You almost darn near have to squeeze the numerals together to get it to look like something on Series D on that one.

As guidance, Series C should always be used on a three-digit Interstate Route sign unless the number 1 is part of the sign.  If that said 415, it would be near perfect.

[myosh_tino]

I have to say that is a poorly designed sign. Series D on a three-digit sign that does not have a 1 in it looks terrible to me. You almost darn near have to squeeze the numerals together to get it to look like something on Series D on that one.

As guidance, Series C should always be used on a three-digit Interstate Route sign unless the number 1 is part of the sign.  If that said 415, it would be near perfect.

I don't know.  This Nevada I-580 shield looks pretty good to me and it uses 15" Series D (the US 395 shield uses 18" Series D)...




Of course, I'm partial to the California standard (12" Series D)...

[jakeroot]

I have to say that is a poorly designed sign. Series D on a three-digit sign that does not have a 1 in it looks terrible to me. You almost darn near have to squeeze the numerals together to get it to look like something on Series D on that one.

As guidance, Series C should always be used on a three-digit Interstate Route sign unless the number 1 is part of the sign.  If that said 415, it would be near perfect.

I don't know.  This Nevada I-580 shield looks pretty good to me and it uses 15" Series D (the US 395 shield uses 18" Series D)...

https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada500/i-580_nv_shield_02a.jpg

Of course, I'm partial to the California standard (12" Series D)...

www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19724052i1.jpg

3DI's and 2DI's should use the same numerals, in my opinion. Especially when they're used next to each other. Seeing as 2Di's don't use anything except Series D, 3DI shields should be in Series D as well.

[PHLBOS]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

Am I missing something here? Looks fine to me.

Looks fine to me too.

The numbers are way too close to the edge of the shield. Padding is there for a reason. Not to mention the font used.

Many states use larger (18"(?) Series D fonts (which is what's pictured up there) for their 3-digit Interstate shields.  IMHO, the narrower Series C numerals would be more appropriate for 3-digit routes not containing a 1 in them (examples: 1XX, X1X or XX1).  The very-narrow Series B font should not be used for 3-digit routes at all.  Such looks hideous (IMHO) on 3dI shields.

Personally, the shield in the above-pic one of the better-looking examples of Series D 3dI shields.  My only comment would be to move the digits a little closer (but not too close) to each other.  Such would allow the numerals to be moved slightly lower as well.  That's about it.

[jeffandnicole]

Found on a local news feed, so it might be a poor photoshop:

I have to say that is a poorly designed sign. Series D on a three-digit sign that does not have a 1 in it looks terrible to me. You almost darn near have to squeeze the numerals together to get it to look like something on Series D on that one.

As guidance, Series C should always be used on a three-digit Interstate Route sign unless the number 1 is part of the sign.  If that said 415, it would be near perfect.

Other than the spacing between the 4 & 0, and 0 & 5 being a little wider than normal, there's nothing wrong with this sign.  And not even close to a 'Worst of'.  It's entirely readable at highway speeds.

[wolfiefrick]

When I make interstate shields they are mostly the same way, except the numbers are a bit smaller and a little farther apart. And, yes, I know, Clearview.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.9460482,-76.2588005,3a,75y,215.6h,78.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shytLbEGhtk_4RvCSUZXkWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Not by design being the worst, but typical independent city fashion for a city in the Commonwealth of Virginia which we all know is to not sign the US, state, and secondary routes that well anymore.  This one is on US 460 which does a good job at signing Tidewater Drive, however forgetting that it is also VA 168.  Considering that before I-64 was completed through here in 1976, this was the principal through route for the area until I-64 took that title away you would figure that Route 168 would be still well signed as I am sure it still would be in many people's mind.

[Big John]

^^Panning 180 degrees to the other median there is a I-64 sign that would qualify as a "worst of" sign.