Different border on new county road shields?

[NE2]

The 2012 Standard Highway Signs book slightly changed the county road shield from

to

(ignore the slight differences in text size/positioning).

Has anyone seen any with the thicker yellow border? Have any DOTs even noticed the change? Was it an unintentional change?

[Zeffy]

I was wondering why there was that style of county road shield on Wikipedia...

I hope it was unintentional - the older one looks much better than that bulky yellow outline on the newer one.

[agentsteel53]

I think it has to do with the design notion that the outermost margin of a sign should be a light color.  compare these two Kansas shields:



to answer the question - I definitely have not noticed a new-style county shield.

[myosh_tino]

Here are a couple of photos from the AARoads Gallery that show the newer style county route shield.  These were taken in and around the Stevens Creek Blvd/Lawrence Expwy/I-280 interchange in west San Jose...





Here's the interesting part... I seemed to recall that these shields were installed well before 2009 when the new county route shield design was released.  You'll also notice the shields in the first photo are white-on-blue instead of yellow-on-blue.

[Zeffy]

You'll also notice the shields in the first photo are white-on-blue instead of yellow-on-blue.

A very common practice in Somerset County, New Jersey:



I thought county route shields on BGS / LGS were supposed to have a yellow background behind them? Or is that a New Jersey / Florida thing? (Side note: Was it really that hard to position the 280 shield and the NORTH slightly further down so that the NORTH wasn't almost touching the sign border?)

Actually, come to think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a pullthrough sign with a county route shield on it.

[Brian556]

QUOTE rom NE2

The 2012 Standard Highway Signs book slightly changed the county road shield from


to


(ignore the slight differences in text size/positioning).

Has anyone seen any with the thicker yellow border? Have any DOTs even noticed the change? Was it an unintentional change?

Yeah, I hope not, too. The old design looks good.

On a related note, where are so many people getting the idea that CR shields should have white text/numbers instead of yellow?
I saw this in FL on I-75, on US 17/92 in Volusia CO, and for CR OLD 50 on US 27. I also saw it on a Parish Rd Shield on I-49 in LA.

[NE2]

Actually, come to think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a pullthrough sign with a county route shield on it.

from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_120/

Here are a couple of photos from the AARoads Gallery that show the newer style county route shield.

It's hard to tell, but those appear to have the normal width of yellow, just without the blue outside.

[Alps]

The yellow is entirely intentional, and it's exactly as Jake stated - to have a lighter outer border. Incidentally, this also allows the county route shield to be posted as-is on a pull-through, because the thicker yellow border will contrast with the green sign. (This is why state route shields aren't supposed to have black backgrounds on highway signs, NJ be damned.)

[hbelkins]

I think it has to do with the design notion that the outermost margin of a sign should be a light color.  compare these two Kansas shields:

The yellow is entirely intentional, and it's exactly as Jake stated - to have a lighter outer border.

Look at directional banners for state and US routes (black on white) and interstate routes (white on blue) and the same thing happens. There's a bit of white and then the outline is black on the state/US banners, and the white goes all the way to the border on the interstate banners. Also compare the borders of a black on yellow advisory sign and a white on red stop sign.

Kentucky has been installing some green directional signs on which the white border does not go all the way to the edge of the sign.

Is that border feature in the MUTCD or other design guideline document? What's the rationale for wanting a lighter outer border?

[Alps]

I think it has to do with the design notion that the outermost margin of a sign should be a light color.  compare these two Kansas shields:

The yellow is entirely intentional, and it's exactly as Jake stated - to have a lighter outer border.

Look at directional banners for state and US routes (black on white) and interstate routes (white on blue) and the same thing happens. There's a bit of white and then the outline is black on the state/US banners, and the white goes all the way to the border on the interstate banners. Also compare the borders of a black on yellow advisory sign and a white on red stop sign.

Kentucky has been installing some green directional signs on which the white border does not go all the way to the edge of the sign.

Is that border feature in the MUTCD or other design guideline document? What's the rationale for wanting a lighter outer border?

Yes, MUTCD. Only dark borders get inset. This obviously does not hold when you're putting a reflective shield shape on a non-reflective black square background, but that's the only exception. If the FHWA could require every shield to be cut out, they probably would, for consistency.

[KEK Inc.]

Santa Clara County has done that for over a decade now.

[vtk]

I think that might be an exaggeration of the actual border thickness. Seems to me it should look OK if the border thickness is equal to that of a modern-spec Interstate shield of the same size.  What is that figure these days, anyway? Ohio SDM specifies a border thicker (3/4" on 24", 15/16" on 30" and 36", IIRC) than what I usually see in the field, so is there a newer, thinner standard?

[Stratuscaster]

The 2012 Standard Highway Signs book slightly changed the county road shield from

to

(ignore the slight differences in text size/positioning).

Has anyone seen any with the thicker yellow border? Have any DOTs even noticed the change? Was it an unintentional change?

They are going up in Dupage County, IL - replacing perfectly functional existing signs.

[roadfro]

I thought county route shields on BGS / LGS were supposed to have a yellow background behind them? Or is that a New Jersey / Florida thing?
[...]
Actually, come to think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a pullthrough sign with a county route shield on it.

The yellow square background for county route shields is an optional thing in the national MUTCD. Same goes for having a white square behind a business interstate loop/spur shield on a guide sign.

For the Las Vegas Beltway, the Clark County 215 shields posted on intersecting freeway signs seem to vary. About half have the yellow square background and half don't, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to why.

[NE2]

Found one, but it predates the SHS change: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=29.614655,-81.970367&spn=0.030407,0.056691&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=29.614689,-81.97765&panoid=Z-m9xGzPruMb7GwAT0eYcQ&cbp=12,310.73,,1,-4.41

[jbnv]

I hope it was unintentional - the older one looks much better than that bulky yellow outline on the newer one.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I personally prefer the solid border. I would like to know if there is a functional rationale for either border.