The Worst of Road Signs

[vtk]

Fell0wship

is that a zero or a capital O?

Had they used the correct font, I don't think there would be any difference.

Actually, there IS a difference - regardless of font. It is a 0 - which would have made it egregious even if it was in FHWA.

Semantically, yes there is a difference between 0 and O.  But in the classic FHWA fonts, the two characters are represented by identical glyphs.  It would still be an error because neither a 0 or an O are an o, but we wouldn't be sure which error it is if an FHWA font were used.

[Alps]

Fell0wship

is that a zero or a capital O?

Had they used the correct font, I don't think there would be any difference.

Actually, there IS a difference - regardless of font. It is a 0 - which would have made it egregious even if it was in FHWA.

Semantically, yes there is a difference between 0 and O.  But in the classic FHWA fonts, the two characters are represented by identical glyphs.  It would still be an error because neither a 0 or an O are an o, but we wouldn't be sure which error it is if an FHWA font were used.

I don't think that's true. I've noticed 0/O errors before. Maybe in a particular series they come close.

[vtk]

But in the classic FHWA fonts, the two characters are represented by identical glyphs. 

I don't think that's true. I've noticed 0/O errors before. Maybe in a particular series they come close.

In Roadgeek 2005 Series D the two characters appear identical when rendered at 360pt in 96dpi.  On further investigation, examining Roadgeek B through E in my font editor reveals identical glyph geometry with only two exceptions: in series B, the capital letter O is a bit lopsided but I don't think it's supposed to be; in series E, the numeral 0 has slightly more generous side bearings but is otherwise identical to the letter O.  IIRC, FHWA's spacing tables indicate matching character width and side bearings for O and 0 in all series.  If someone were to dig up dimensioned specifications for the glyphs, I would be surprised if any difference is specified.  (PS: I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could send me a copy of such specifications...)  Considering the prevalence of the kind of error that started this whole argument, it would make a lot of sense for the numeral 0 and capital O to be identical by design, particularly considering non-computerized fabrication techniques and button copy.

[flowmotion]

These NY104 shields are not only obnoxiously huge, they have two different fonts...

Worse is, there's more of them...a stretch of 104 was rebuilt a few years back, and ALL of the shields along that stretch are just like these!

Without knowing the area, was there a specific reason the traffic engineers might have thought larger signs were desirable? Admittedly they're kinda bloated, but more information is needed before they're declared the worst of the worst.

[cu2010]

Oversized shields seems to be a NYSDOT Region 3 thing...why, I have no idea. They're all over NY12, too. It's worse since the directional banner and the arrows are the same size as before, and not proportionate to the huge-ass shield.

The worst part, though, is the use of Series E for the "4" and Series D for the "10".  They're all like that.

[Alps]

But in the classic FHWA fonts, the two characters are represented by identical glyphs. 

I don't think that's true. I've noticed 0/O errors before. Maybe in a particular series they come close.

In Roadgeek 2005 Series D the two characters appear identical when rendered at 360pt in 96dpi.  On further investigation, examining Roadgeek B through E in my font editor reveals identical glyph geometry with only two exceptions: in series B, the capital letter O is a bit lopsided but I don't think it's supposed to be; in series E, the numeral 0 has slightly more generous side bearings but is otherwise identical to the letter O.  IIRC, FHWA's spacing tables indicate matching character width and side bearings for O and 0 in all series.  If someone were to dig up dimensioned specifications for the glyphs, I would be surprised if any difference is specified.  (PS: I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could send me a copy of such specifications...)  Considering the prevalence of the kind of error that started this whole argument, it would make a lot of sense for the numeral 0 and capital O to be identical by design, particularly considering non-computerized fabrication techniques and button copy.

I guess what happens is the distance is specified in a different font than the other legend, so the 0 and O on a particular sign would be to different sizes.

[vtk]

But in the classic FHWA fonts, the two characters are represented by identical glyphs. 

I don't think that's true. I've noticed 0/O errors before. Maybe in a particular series they come close.

In Roadgeek 2005 Series D the two characters appear identical when rendered at 360pt in 96dpi.  On further investigation, examining Roadgeek B through E in my font editor reveals identical glyph geometry with only two exceptions: in series B, the capital letter O is a bit lopsided but I don't think it's supposed to be; in series E, the numeral 0 has slightly more generous side bearings but is otherwise identical to the letter O.  IIRC, FHWA's spacing tables indicate matching character width and side bearings for O and 0 in all series.  If someone were to dig up dimensioned specifications for the glyphs, I would be surprised if any difference is specified.  (PS: I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could send me a copy of such specifications...)  Considering the prevalence of the kind of error that started this whole argument, it would make a lot of sense for the numeral 0 and capital O to be identical by design, particularly considering non-computerized fabrication techniques and button copy.

I guess what happens is the distance is specified in a different font than the other legend, so the 0 and O on a particular sign would be to different sizes.

There's also the possibility of using (for example) a 16" lowercase o where a 12" uppercase O or number 0 should go, which would look wrong even if it's the right series font...

[Dougtone]

Oversized shields seems to be a NYSDOT Region 3 thing...why, I have no idea. They're all over NY12, too. It's worse since the directional banner and the arrows are the same size as before, and not proportionate to the huge-ass shield.

The worst part, though, is the use of Series E for the "4" and Series D for the "10".  They're all like that.

Well, NYSDOT is known for being consistently inconsistent!

[Android]

In Roadgeek 2005 Series D the two characters appear identical when rendered at 360pt in 96dpi.  On further investigation, examining Roadgeek B through E in my font editor reveals identical glyph geometry with only two exceptions: in series B, the capital letter O is a bit lopsided but I don't think it's supposed to be; in series E, the numeral 0 has slightly more generous side bearings but is otherwise identical to the letter O.  IIRC, FHWA's spacing tables indicate matching character width and side bearings for O and 0 in all series.  If someone were to dig up dimensioned specifications for the glyphs, I would be surprised if any difference is specified.  (PS: I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could send me a copy of such specifications...) 

FYI: Have you looked at the pdf regarding these typefaces on the MUTCD's website?

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Alphabets.pdf

From that, a quick example:

[vtk]

I have that PDF on my desktop machine.  While I can't inspect the node-by-node definition of shapes in PDF files at present, a cross-eye visual comparison of the glyphs in that screenshot reveals no perceptible difference.

[InterstateNG]

The signage along the Katy Freeway is generally awful, but this sign takes the cake:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Katy,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.777378,-95.895109&spn=0.018662,0.038581&sll=30.307761,-97.753401&sspn=0.59398,1.234589&hnear=Katy,+Fort+Bend,+Texas&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=29.777374,-95.894853&panoid=KXgKSHTyHPX5ZA2D2bOE7w&cbp=12,316.79,,0,2.3

[NE2]

I like the hurricane evacuation logo on the shoulder.

[national highway 1]

Sorry but these US 190 shields in Louisiana have to go here:
(from The Best of Road Signs)

[amroad17]

The signage along the Katy Freeway is generally awful, but this sign takes the cake:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Katy,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.777378,-95.895109&spn=0.018662,0.038581&sll=30.307761,-97.753401&sspn=0.59398,1.234589&hnear=Katy,+Fort+Bend,+Texas&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=29.777374,-95.894853&panoid=KXgKSHTyHPX5ZA2D2bOE7w&cbp=12,316.79,,0,2.3

Green over that makes that sign as ugly as hell!!

[agentsteel53]

that shield design appears to have originated in Alabama. 



1965.

[formulanone]

What evil lurks at the end of CR851 in Naples...

[Kacie Jane]

Well, at least that's a shape I've never seen before.

[ctsignguy]

What evil lurks at the end of CR851 in Naples...

They look like animal pelts..... O_o!

[NE2]

They look like animal pelts..... O_o!

Like this (which is supposed to be an animal pelt) upside down:

[agentsteel53]

I have a photo from Sept. 2006 of the orange Floridachrome shields from somewher around there.  maybe that junction, or maybe a few blocks away.



same awful shape!

[yakra]

that shield design appears to have originated in Alabama. 



1965.

I was about to say this lady really gets around, but no, it's a slightly different car... o_O

[agentsteel53]

same couple.  not only do they get around, but they can afford a new car every few years!

they're friends of mine - the husband is generally the one who steps out and gets the photo while the wife patiently waits in the car.

[Ian]

Sorry but these US 190 shields in Louisiana have to go here:
(from The Best of Road Signs)

I actually kinda like these designs.

[Kacie Jane]

I'm assuming they were posted here not because of the shape, but because of the difficulty of squeezing 190 into them.

[Dougtone]

I found this gem while visiting Cape Breton Island earlier this week...