The Worst of Road Signs

[Central Avenue]

States that use their border outlines for their route markers shouldn't try to widen them (or contract them, if applicable) to fit three-digit numbers in them. They should instead use a narrower font.

Agreed. I always found the narrow route numbers in square shield to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing, if nothing else, though I've I've become accustomed to the "wide" 3-digit Ohio shield.

[ctsignguy]

Agreed. I always found the narrow route numbers in square shield to be a bit more aesthetically pleasing, if nothing else, though I've I've become accustomed to the "wide" 3-digit Ohio shield.

So you would prefer this....


...to this?


the wide Ohios kinda grew on me too....like athlete's foot...

[Eth]

States that use their border outlines for their route markers shouldn't try to widen them (or contract them, if applicable) to fit three-digit numbers in them. They should instead use a narrower font.

Absolutely agreed (as one might guess from my avatar).  I'm looking at Alabama especially, which as far as I'm aware is under the impression that Series D is the only legal font on a route marker.

[codyg1985]

Series D is more legible to me than Series C on a shield.  I think South Carolina uses Series E on BGS signs on their shields, and at first I didn't like it, but it has sort of grown on me since it is easier to see.

Sometimes you have to stretch the state outline to make it work, even if it screws it up.

[vtk]

Ohio's state route marker shape is not literally the outline of Ohio – it's modified to ensure there is plenty of room for numbers inside of it.  The wide version isn't any less correct than the square version – and it's not just a simple x-axis stretch of the square version, either.  

This is actually a problem for consistency.  Some of the ugliest OH state route markers I've seen have used GIS-accurate state outlines.  (And then there are those horrendous markers in Nelsonville and scattered elsewhere – no idea where that version of the outline came from...)

[J N Winkler]

My objection to state-outline route markers is that they are hard to specify in drawings and this seems to correlate to problems propagating the correct design to every route marker sign in the field.  Louisiana, for example, has a standard plan sheet for its four guide-sign route markers which does not specify all of the relevant dimensions for any of the markers, thus leaving significant details (such as the southern coastline) to the contractor's imagination.  Ohio DOT has long had drawings which show the marker outlines against a grid, but all of these problems with "GIS-accurate" designs suggest that signing contractors are taking the path of least resistance and pulling an Ohio state outline out of a commercial clip-art package instead of using the actual route marker outlines as specified by Ohio DOT.  Is Ohio DOT expecting the contractors to do grid traces instead of making the outlines freely downloadable as vector images?

[Scott5114]

I have to wonder how often contractors just pull the vector shields off Wikipedia. I've seen some OK 67 shields that looked suspiciously like an interim shield design I drew up before we had official specs and photos to show what the route shield was "really" supposed to look like.

[Takumi]

Here's the southbound look at my previous post. It looks like it's just leaning against the barrel here. I'm surprised that it hasn't fallen over.


I think the lack of inches on these is just Colonial Heights department of public works trying to save a few dollars. (This is a department that got so tired of putting "E." on street blades East Westover and East Ellerslie, two well-traveled local streets, new ones just said "Westover" and "Ellerslie" for awhile, to the point that, in the case of the latter, they actually took the time to go around and green out all the existing "E." notations on the street blades!  They've all been replaced now. "E. Westover" street blades have returned, while E. Ellerslie ones have not.)

For comparison as to what these clearance signs normally look like, here's another one further north in CH, also southbound, going under a railroad.


And now, some weird I-95 shields. The 9 is at the wrong angle in these. The second one, of course, has more problems...

[hbelkins]

Tennessee has a pretty good approach to its primary route markers. They all incorporate the state outline with the state name at the bottom of the sign, and Tennessee is wider than it is tall. their solution is to sign all primary state routes (1-, 2- or 3-digit) in a wide sign, generally 24x30".

I'd put the state outline and name at the top of the sign, but the current design may be a throwback to the days when all state routes were signed with a triangle with "TENN" below the route number.

And for illustrative purposes about state outline designs, I present:

[agentsteel53]

I have to wonder how often contractors just pull the vector shields off Wikipedia. I've seen some OK 67 shields that looked suspiciously like an interim shield design I drew up before we had official specs and photos to show what the route shield was "really" supposed to look like.

got a photo of this?

also, when will contractors start pulling 1926-spec US route markers off Wikipedia?

[NE2]

I like Florida's approach - cut a chunk out of the left side and let the number hang out. Oklahoma's seems too lumped-together to me.

[vtk]

My objection to state-outline route markers is that they are hard to specify in drawings and this seems to correlate to problems propagating the correct design to every route marker sign in the field.  Louisiana, for example, has a standard plan sheet for its four guide-sign route markers which does not specify all of the relevant dimensions for any of the markers, thus leaving significant details (such as the southern coastline) to the contractor's imagination.  Ohio DOT has long had drawings which show the marker outlines against a grid, but all of these problems with "GIS-accurate" designs suggest that signing contractors are taking the path of least resistance and pulling an Ohio state outline out of a commercial clip-art package instead of using the actual route marker outlines as specified by Ohio DOT.  Is Ohio DOT expecting the contractors to do grid traces instead of making the outlines freely downloadable as vector images?

Ohio's grid-traceable spec dates to 1975, with a modification in 2004 which apparently consists entirely of changing the code identifying that type of sign.  In 1975, "downloadable" and "vector" didn't quite have the meanings they do today, and likely wouldn't have been helpful to contractors until about a decade ago anyway. 

I would fully support a move to OH route markers that use a simplified outline which can be fully described by a dozen or fewer segments (lines or arcs) whose endpoints and radii can be distributed on a standard drawing as well as a small SVG file.  And the wide version should still be a separate spec.

And for illustrative purposes about state outline designs, I present:

I like those.  Ideally, Georgia's should look almost identical.

[J N Winkler]

Ohio's grid-traceable spec dates to 1975, with a modification in 2004 which apparently consists entirely of changing the code identifying that type of sign.  In 1975, "downloadable" and "vector" didn't quite have the meanings they do today, and likely wouldn't have been helpful to contractors until about a decade ago anyway.

That is just the problem.  Back in 1975 you could still fake the Ohio route marker without using the actual grid drawing, but most of the methods available with 1970's technology were no easier, and often more difficult.  For example, you could have used the Ohio piece from a child's puzzle map of the USA but that would still have meant tracing something, and if you were going to go to that trouble, you might as well use the official drawing.  With the widespread availability of vector design packages and free clip art, we are now in a situation where unofficial Ohio outlines are considerably easier for contractors to access than the official ones.

I have just checked the current edition of SDM on the Ohio DOT website and it looks like there still isn't an officially endorsed vector representation for any of the Ohio state route markers, unless you count the example shields in the M2 series designs (which, unlike the route marker designs proper, have largely been remastered in CAD).  Indeed the route marker designs are raster scans of the 1975 versions.

BTW, although the current drawings date from 1975, the grid tracing concept is much older.  Long ago Ohio DOT used to maintain traffic sign designs as a series of standard plan sheets which were included in signing plans sets as needed.  I have, for example, a standard plan sheet dated 1963 showing--against a grid--a combined one, two, or three-digit Ohio guide sign state route marker (39" x 36" with 15" Series C digits).  (I think there were cyclostyled traffic sign drawings in the 1930's, but in more modern times I suspect the SDM was introduced partly so the signing standard plan sheets could be eliminated from plans sets, thereby reducing overall sheet count.)

I would fully support a move to OH route markers that use a simplified outline which can be fully described by a dozen or fewer segments (lines or arcs) whose endpoints and radii can be distributed on a standard drawing as well as a small SVG file.  And the wide version should still be a separate spec.

I would suggest additionally that it should be made available in multiple vector formats and it should be a standard contract requirement that one of those specific files (not any others which the contractor may have on hand) be used to fabricate the shields.  And then that contract requirement should be enforced, if necessary by rejecting otherwise acceptable signs with non-conforming Ohio outlines and requiring the contractor to eat the abortive cost.

And for illustrative purposes about state outline designs, I present:

I like those.  Ideally, Georgia's should look almost identical.

Missouri is even worse than Ohio in that the state route marker design is contained in a Standard Highway Signs supplement which is not on the MoDOT website and cannot be obtained by a member of the general public without difficulty.  On the other hand, MoDOT has centralized guide sign design, unlike Ohio, and this may make off-spec outlines easier to police.

[thenetwork]

States that use their border outlines for their route markers shouldn't try to widen them (or contract them, if applicable) to fit three-digit numbers in them. They should instead use a narrower font.

And in the case of Kansas, whoever saw an oval sunflower?

It seemed to me that ODOT put the widened shields in "wide" use in the mid to late 80s. I remember wide shields (both state outline and federal design) being few and far between when I was a pre-schooler in the 1970s (out east of Cleveland). Even after moving here to Central Ohio, I only saw wide shields on major routes. Local routes were left with the "narrow" shields.

I think there are still two styles of the wider shields in OH in use today.  It seems that the districts in West Central Ohio use a wider rectangular shield for 3-digit routes (with the same width as the directional banners above them)  that needs to be supported on 2 metal poles.  Just about all the other districts in Ohio I've seen use the regular-sized wide shields that can be supported on a single metal pole, like their 2-digit shield cousins.

[agentsteel53]

It seemed to me that ODOT put the widened shields in "wide" use in the mid to late 80s. I remember wide shields (both state outline and federal design) being few and far between when I was a pre-schooler in the 1970s (out east of Cleveland). Even after moving here to Central Ohio, I only saw wide shields on major routes. Local routes were left with the "narrow" shields.

wide shields (while being around as early as 1929 in Massachusetts and New York) only became generally conceptualized starting with the 1961 MUTCD (which offered wide interstate shields, as well as wide US shields for guide-sign applications). 

it was the 1970 MUTCD that mandated wide shields, and states adopted that MUTCD at their own pace.  the US route shield shown in the 1970 MUTCD was invented in Pennsylvania, around 1966.  (as was the modern interstate marker)

[Central Avenue]

This photo is a few months old, so I don't remember exactly which intersection this is at, but it's somewhere in Delaware, Ohio:

[formulanone]

I don't see what's wrong with that sign, as long as you have 20/10 vision under perfect lighting conditions...

[1995hoo]

Let me preface this comment by saying that I recognize that the INTENT of these signs is noble and positive, but the execution and the signs' appearance is terrible. Sorry about the blurry image, BTW. I was using my cell phone camera because I forgot to bring my SLR.

This can be found on westbound Franconia Road, Virginia Secondary Route 644 in Fairfax County, at its intersection with Loisdale Road/Commerce Street just east of I-95. I'm stopped on the shoulder of the elevated express lanes that carry thru traffic over two signalized intersections so you need not stop.

I have some comments about this setup, but I'll let others have their say first. One thing that is not apparent from the picture: The two larger little green signs (the one with the three shields and the other next to it) are on a gantry. In front of those there is the mast arm with the four lights and the little green signs. There is ANOTHER mast arm that barely shows up in the picture–its end is visible about halfway up the right side of the picture. That mast arm holds a green street sign with the text "[Left arrow] Loisdale Road/Commerce Street [right arrow]." The street sign used to be on the mast arm with the lights, and the four little green signs didn't exist, but about two months ago they put up these four signs, put up the extra mast arm, and moved the street sign to that.

[Duke87]

Here's the southbound look at my previous post. It looks like it's just leaning against the barrel here. I'm surprised that it hasn't fallen over.

I spotted a sign like this one (clearance 14', no inches) on I-66 eastbound a couple days ago. Although the "14'" didn't appear to be centered on that one.

[vtk]

I think I see some Clearview 95's...

[SidS1045]

I've seen some horrible signage in the past couple weeks. Unfortunately the pictures aren't much better.

Sometime this summer the last few state-name I-95 shields from the 1980s were replaced with...these. The blurriness of this picture hides it a little bit, but there's a LOT of space between the numbers and the ends of the shield. It looks fat.

These also popped up on MA-128 (concurrent with I-95) between Burlington and Reading on some BGS replacements that were done this past summer.  Funny thing is, last year they did some reassurance-shield replacements on the same stretch of 128 and they actually looked pretty good.  The numbers filled the blue field on the shield and were properly centered.

[Ian]

Not too big of a deal, but the MA 110 shield outline on this 2004 installed BGS on US 3 in Lowell, MA is a little bit more rounded than it should be.

[Alex]

Not too big of a deal, but the MA 110 shield outline on this 2004 installed BGS on US 3 in Lowell, MA is a little bit more rounded than it should be.

<snip>

That looks like an old television screen.

[Ian]

Not too big of a deal, but the MA 110 shield outline on this 2004 installed BGS on US 3 in Lowell, MA is a little bit more rounded than it should be.

<snip>

That looks like an old television screen.

I thought the same thing! I recall seeing a few other signs with this style shield on this stretch of US 3.

[formulanone]

That looks like an old television screen.

Same here, although those rounded corners of a TV screen are a thing of the past. Last week, my daughter and I were watching some old Looney Toons, and the phrase "don't touch that dial" was mentioned. "Daddy, what's a die-all?" ...they haven't been relevant to me since 1985, when our little 9" B&W set broke.