Independent Route Marker Banners on BGSes

[burgess87]

I was playing around in GMAX (making more SimCity signs) the other day, and I thought of a question:

Why can't independent route marker banners (cardinal directions, "TO", "JCT", etc.) be used on BGSes?

For example, the sign below:



Why not have the directional banners instead of the words?

Here's an example I did in GMAX:



I realize that's a regulatory sign, but it's all I have at the moment.

Looking forward to discussion and multiple opinions!

[agentsteel53]

because it looks a little gauche?  the only reason banners have borders and are distinguishable from the background when they are independent signs is because they can't exactly be painted onto the air.

it's like having New Jersey style green sign shields (with the black background), except even sillier.

[J N Winkler]

MoDOT does have a standard calling for "BUSINESS" to appear on guide signs as a tab rather than green-background legend.

Personally, I don't approve.  If you are going to go to all of the trouble and expense of a large sign panel, why vitiate that by using banners with Series C (or even Series B) legend at a smaller letter height?

[Scott5114]

I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.

Another problem besides the tackiness factor is that having a white patch with text on an otherwise green sign might be construed as a regulatory patch. Other signs, like "EZ-Pass ONLY" signs, now place the word "ONLY" in a white patch to convey that it is a regulatory message on an otherwise guide-oriented sign. Allowing directional banners to follow the same scheme could cause confusion.

[WNYroadgeek]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=NY+14+I-86&sll=36.879621,-95.273437&sspn=37.011094,56.513672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=14+Interstate+86,+Horseheads,+Chemung,+New+York+14845&ll=42.16493,-76.840138&spn=0.016891,0.027595&z=15&layer=c&cbll=42.164778,-76.840086&panoid=92drdgN9aJgBEQxk54Mbig&cbp=12,171.64,,0,-4.64

It's possible.

[vdeane]

New York isn't exactly the ambassador of regulation signage.  Look at all the (really ugly) boxed street names that remain even though they aren't allowed anymore.

At least most of our signs look good, unlike California.

[agentsteel53]

At least most of our signs look good, unlike California.

our signs look damn good for being 50 years old.

[Ian]

DelDOT used to do this back in the early days of interstate signage. And not quite the same, but how about these "TO" tabs on top of the BGS?

[iwishiwascanadian]

Personally I don't like it and wonder why its done, it makes the sign cluttered and harder to read.  It's done in Nova Scotia though, which pisses me off. 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=44.688885,-63.558526&spn=0,0.027466&z=16&layer=c&cbll=44.688983,-63.558635&panoid=fGLxD6XzHWQojVfgHphRLg&cbp=12,315.82,,0,-13.42

[US71]

MoDOT does have a standard calling for "BUSINESS" to appear on guide signs as a tab rather than green-background legend.

Like this:


They just started that a couple years ago and I think it looks ugly.

[akotchi]

Working in and living near New Jersey, I have gotten used to seeing the standalone shields on the guide signs over the years.  I don't mind the shields posted either way.  I don't like the standalone banners posted on the signs, though.  They can be harder to see than the text directly on the panel.

[vdeane]

our signs look damn good for being 50 years old.

I was talking about the ones with way too much information crammed on the sign and everything shoved where it would fit.

[KillerTux]

Looks pretty good actually.

[roadfro]

^ In both cases, there's no reason normal white on green text couldn't have been used.

I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.

It's a Standard in Section 2D.12, paragraph 6 of the 2009 MUTCD.  I believe the language is new in this edition.

Standard:
06 If a route sign and its auxiliary signs are combined on a single sign with a green background, the auxiliary messages shall be white legends placed directly on the green background. Auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign or other type of sign.

[burgess87]

^ In both cases, there's no reason normal white on green text couldn't have been used.

I believe the latest MUTCD specifically prohibits this practice, although I cannot find it in the book anywhere upon a casual perusal.

It's a Standard in Section 2D.12, paragraph 6 of the 2009 MUTCD.  I believe the language is new in this edition.

Standard:
06 If a route sign and its auxiliary signs are combined on a single sign with a green background, the auxiliary messages shall be white legends placed directly on the green background. Auxiliary signs shall not be mounted directly to a guide sign or other type of sign.

Makes sense.  There's a reason why I'm a SC4 sign engineer . . . so I can do whatever the heck I want! 

[KillerTux]

Caught this last night but didn't have a camera so to the google maps. There are a few more but I have to find them again.

[UptownRoadGeek]

You mean like this?

[burgess87]

Exactly.

[roadfro]

Yes.

Unless the main portion of the sign was reused from another installation, there's no plausible explanation for why the "West" banner couldn't have been applied directly to the green background. The use of a separate banner introduces unnecessary visual clutter to the sign.

Another option would have been to use separate signage for the banner, shield, lane assignment and only messages. The guide sign method, however, provides more target value to the overall sign message.

[UptownRoadGeek]

These have been popping up a lot lately, replacing stand alone shields, etc.

[vdeane]

UptownRoadGeek: I can't see any of your pictures.  Does anyone else have this issue?  They're just blank and semi-transparent.

[Scott5114]

I can see them...

[vdeane]

I've figured it out: my university blocks the site the images are hosted on because it contains a known virus.

[UptownRoadGeek]

say what?

[The Premier]

I've figured it out: my university blocks the site the images are hosted on because it contains a known virus.

That can't be good.

My best guess is that you may be using a university computer, that may be why the images wasn't shown. You might want to discuss it with an IT official about it.