Signs with partitions or not

[roadman65]

I was wondering what everyone's take is on partitions (or lines drawn) on guide signs between either different destinations, or different direction destinations over no separation boundaries.

NJDOT uses partitions separating control cities for each individual direction with some rare cases of two points in one direction inside two different squares.  Then the individual counties have many of them without lines and just all points listed within the square of the sign.

FDOT, depending on district, uses non partitioned as the norm, but some places in the FL Panhandle you will see partitions on interstate ramp guides.

Then MDSHA uses individual boxes (some different signs mounted together) for each control point on direction guides.


What is everyone preference?  To me I think the partitions make it easier to read at a quick glance, but for multiple destinations I think New Jersey's way is best.  Separate them by direction as Maryland's can be quite confusing for five or more destinations.   Florida's way of no lines between can have you spend a little more time comprehending as you have to take in each one more careful as well as stop yourself after each individual arrow.


Here are some examples:

In Greenbrook, NJ on SB CR 529 at US 22 with partitions. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bound+Brook,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.603717,-74.476029&spn=0.001796,0.003819&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=bound+&t=h&hnear=Bound+Brook,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.603717,-74.476029&panoid=zFVKOTWzHqYwdZ5g3a_5yQ&cbp=12,162.95,,0,0

In Lake Buena Vista, FL on WB I-4 ramp to FL 535 with no partitions. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lake+Buena+Vista,+FL&hl=en&ll=28.37913,-81.50376&spn=0.004125,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=lake+b&t=h&hnear=Lake+Buena+Vista,+Orange,+Florida&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378879,-81.504029&panoid=7uAce4XzZOePHU1Vbso5XQ&cbp=12,230.12,,0,0

Here is a rare NJ installation of no partitions on SB New Providence Road in Mountainside, NJ at US 22. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mountainside,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.671395,-74.357507&spn=0.002514,0.003819&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=mountains&t=h&hnear=Mountainside,+Union,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.671881,-74.35787&panoid=taEPdtfrkxRyWz08HhffKg&cbp=12,172.8,,0,0

Here is New Jersey with three control points and only one partition on WB I-78 ramp to CR 531 in Watchung. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Watchung,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.652993,-74.45448&spn=0.001795,0.003819&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=watchu&t=h&hnear=Watchung,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.653012,-74.454391&panoid=RyzzBoGGOMX24iOp7-Q2BA&cbp=12,288.91,,0,22.5

[NE2]

My take: who cares?

[roadman65]

My take: who cares?

Yes we all know your take!  A man who spends an hour of his time to gather information that would be pointing out to us states that have stolen road signs of various state's Route 69's is pointing this out. 

[NE2]

[Zeffy]

I like these types of signs when they are used like this, but I don't find it any harder to read non-partitioned signs versus partitioned ones.

[roadman65]

I like these types of signs when they are used like this, but I don't find it any harder to read non-partitioned signs versus partitioned ones.

I was referring to quick glance.  True other signs without the partition can be read quickly, but still require that, at least I think, a fraction of a second more.

Nonetheless, I like that particular assembly.

[SD Mapman]

Out West, I haven't really seen these types of signs. Usually the control cities are large and obviously in one direction or another. My take is they're cool, but not entirely necessary.

[Brian556]

I can read them easily with or without separation lines.

Interestingly, when I worked for TxDOT, we a got a few complaints about the ones without partitions. people thought the arrows were pointed the wrong direction, because they are so stupid that they don't know that the arrow for the city is on the same line as the city. The two signs they complained about were a little wider than necessary, which was a contributing factor to this.

One of them was laid out like this:

<---             Denton
McKinney          --->

On the two signs that people complained about, they gave me a thin roll of white sheeting, and had me add separation lines to the signs in the field.

[Brandon]

My take: who cares?

My take: Dude, don't be an asshole.

[Zeffy]

On the two signs that people complained about, they gave me a thin roll of white sheeting, and had me add separation lines to the signs in the field.

At least they didn't make you guys replace the signs entirely.

[1995hoo]

I don't have a strong reaction either way, but if I were to have to decide on a single layout for that sort of sign, I might prefer something like putting the shield in the top center, then the two directions (say, east and west) to either side of that shield with an arrow underneath, and beneath those arrows I'd put the cities. If I wanted a separator line, I'd center it under the shield. I don't have one of those sign-creator softwares that some of you use, so I'll attempt to use a text layout to indicate (the "7" would be in the appropriate shield):

Code Select Expand


WEST          7         EAST
<----         |         ---->
Berryville    |         Leesburg


My reasoning behind this layout is that it eliminates the need for multiple arrows and eliminates any potential ambiguity; it also allows for multiple cities without adding arrows (say, if you wanted to add Winchester on the "West" column and Sterling or Frederick, MD, on the "East" column, you could easily do so).

I guess the arrow could go on the bottom as well.

When I first saw the subject line on this thread, I pictured BGSs that use partition lines. This sign is new within about the past month. I like this style of separator line. I know there is some disagreement over the new APL standard, but I think the separator line is effective here (though admittedly a bit fuzzy in this screenshot taken from a video), and regardless of one's opinion on the APLs in general the sign is an improvement over what used to be there (see second image below and disregard the missing portion of the sign on the right!).

[Zeffy]

I don't have one of those sign-creator softwares that some of you use, so I'll attempt to use a text layout to indicate (the "7" would be in the appropriate shield):

Code Select Expand


WEST          7         EAST
<----         |         ---->
Berryville    |         Leesburg


Extra space under the destinations is provided in case you wanted to add an extra destination legend without having to remake the sign.

[1995hoo]

Thanks. That's exactly the sort of thing I was envisioning, although nowadays VDOT would use Clearview (which is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion because it's the sign layout that matters).

[Tom958]

...but I think the separator line is effective here

I agree, FWIW. 

[cpzilliacus]

I don't have one of those sign-creator softwares that some of you use, so I'll attempt to use a text layout to indicate (the "7" would be in the appropriate shield):

Code Select Expand


WEST          7         EAST
<----         |         ---->
Berryville    |         Leesburg


Extra space under the destinations is provided in case you wanted to add an extra destination legend without having to remake the sign.

I like this - a lot - very clear.

Only gripe - if I were designing the sign, I think I would want Hamilton under Berryville.

[J N Winkler]

My take: who cares?

Sign comprehension researchers, for one--Slade Hulbert (a human factors researcher at UCLA who was very active in the 1960's and early 1970's) actually wrote a paper on this very issue (published in an early 1960's volume of PHRB, if memory serves).  He found that horizontal ruled lines do aid comprehension, but the key question, for which I don't think the research gave a categorical answer, is whether the benefit justifies the added sign panel area, since you can almost double the height of a sign by putting a ruled line between each destination while maintaining the same space padding.  Caltrans uniformly uses ruled lines to segregate each destination group, but many state DOTs eliminate them on a case-by-case basis to economize on panel area.

[1995hoo]

....

Only gripe - if I were designing the sign, I think I would want Hamilton under Berryville.

Heh. That would really depend on where you are when you intersect the road, wouldn't it?! 

Not that it matters much, and of course there was no way for anyone else to know this because I didn't say it, but as I typed my comment I was envisioning coming north on Blueridge Mountain Road (secondary route 601–it leaves US-50 just west of Paris and intersects Route 7 at Snickers Gap). We used that route last September en route from Fox Meadow Winery in Linden to the outlet mall in Leesburg (route: VA-55 east to Markham, left onto Leeds Manor Road and follow to its end, left onto US-17, left again onto US-50, right onto Blueridge Mountain Road, right again onto Route 7). Hamilton is east of Blueridge Mountain Road, but Purcellville would probably be the more significant place to merit inclusion. But if I were east of Hamilton and wanted to include it, I'd probably put it above Berryville under the theory that it's closer.

Actually, for what it's worth, the only reason I used Berryville instead of Winchester is that I wasn't sure how well the "Code" tags would work and I was having trouble lining up the text. In the real world I'd probably put Winchester on the sign.

Either way, though, I find zeffy's mockup a lot clearer than signs with multiple lines of text followed by arrows pointing whichever way, especially if they alternate direction (for example, one line with an arrow pointing right, next line points left, line under that points right again, etc.). Of course there is the countervailing issue J N Winkler raises about economizing on panel area, which the design I suggested does not do all that well at all.

[hobsini2]

I have always like the way Wisconsin does there directionals for regular guide signs. I also like having the route markers on the same sign. It's basically like this:


The only thing I wish they would do is put a distance especially for the ones in rural areas.

BTW, the reason I am not using the image from google maps is because recently they changed the sign to have a line between Green Bay and Downtown so not to confuse motorists. But that's not the point.

[Alps]

My take: Who cares?




Nah, but seriously, I prefer ruled lines to separate groups with different directions or lane uses.

[JMoses24]

I prefer the lines. On a BGS in particular this:



...presents better to me than this:



(Both images from I-75/71 at I-275 in Erlanger, KY from AARoads)

[NE2]

I prefer the lines. On a BGS in particular this:
...presents better to me than this:
(Both images from I-75/71 at I-275 in Erlanger, KY from AARoads)

There's a reason the second one has no line: you can use either lane to reach I-275 west.

[707]

My take: who cares?

My take: Dude, don't be an asshole.

I agree. But back onto the subject of this signage idea, I love it! More states could use this as could U.S. Highways. Instead of just showing the sign as to what highway it is, it also tells you what cities the highway heads into or towards.

[jeffandnicole]

Here's a BGS on the NJ Turnpike that I'm not getting the purpose of (sorry for the clarity of the pic).  This is found as one enters the NJ Turnpike at Interchange 7.  It's all one panel.  The signs are new.  Why put a line between the shield/direction and the destination?  The other interchanges all seem to have normal signage without that line thru the middle.

[Zeffy]

I thought if you could reach both directions of a signed route from an exit, that it would just contain a shield without any directions... here's how I would've designed that:


(Sorry for the horrible control city choices, I didn't see anything that looked like it should be used)

For some reason, I actually like how that looks. Plus, it's the Turnpike - so the last thing you should expect is normal signage. 

[Brandon]

^^
1. Louisville is signed as that is where I-71 goes.  The split is well before Lexington.
2. The airport is in the same direction as Indiana.