Signage pet peeves

[pianocello]

Exit tabs that are wider than the sign itself.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.693985,-91.659719&spn=0.000008,0.015256&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.694002,-91.659273&panoid=1S2vtXnuk-FOxMCeu13bLw&cbp=12,289.26,,0,1.58

[1995hoo]

Exit tabs that are wider than the sign itself.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.693985,-91.659719&spn=0.000008,0.015256&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=41.694002,-91.659273&panoid=1S2vtXnuk-FOxMCeu13bLw&cbp=12,289.26,,0,1.58

You'd love this one near my house, then (and notice the one in the background that's the same way).

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.794634,-77.147155&spn=0.025688,0.066047&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=38.794593,-77.14732&panoid=dByecXRwaasgO7CCLOWu7w&cbp=12,251.56,,0,0&t=h&z=15

[architect77]

To me both of the signs in roadfro's post from yesterday look better than Maryland's peculiar style of sometimes using just the word "Only" when there's one must-exit lane and one optional-exit lane. An example can be seen at the link below. I had never noticed how the color of the sign border changes to black on the yellow portion of that particular style of sign. Now that I see it, it looks funny to me even though it's obviously standard on signs where the yellow portion spans the width of the sign (like in roadfro's post from early this morning with the I-15 to LA exit sign photo). I've never seen a sign like the one for the Downtown Reno exit sign shown above.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=38.994431,-77.158232&spn=0.003181,0.008256&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.994316,-77.158217&panoid=9JeTIckg7JHlQdhLkGiQKg&cbp=12,162.08,,0,-2.75

I agree, this sign reads as if the leftmost lane could crossover an exit only lane and continue straight.

[architect77]

I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

I do love this Texas photo. With proper kerning Clearview looks fantastic also.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).

[architect77]

I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).
[image removed from quote]

I don't necessarily mind the initial larger capital letter depending on the sign, but the one shown below in Springfield, Virginia, strikes me as hideous because the letters all look so squished-in on that tiny sign. (Of course, any typeface might look a bit kak on that narrow of a sign.) I find the directions on the other sign to the right to be far easier to read. This is one area where being in the correct lane for your desired connection is very important and so the clearer the sign, the better, although of course if you don't know the area merely having a compass point may not be of much help. The non-centered arrows on the sign on the right seem to correspond to a newer trend I've noted where VDOT seems to prefer somewhat smaller signs where feasible. Doesn't bother me here because the sign is still aligned correctly, but I've seen others where arrows meant for adjacent lanes wind up being over the same lane.

Sorry about the grainy picture. Zooming in a long way with a phone camera is not ideal.

I love the black gantries, and one thing Virginia does very well is mast arm signals often with a signal for every lane. Statewide, they're consistent and practically perfect.

[vtk]

I've seen a few signs around lately, usually at entrances to freeways from conventional roads, where the text sizes look goofy.  For one thing, the first letter of the highway's direction often looks like it's 33% larger than the rest of the word; I think 20% larger should be the max.  More annoying is the destination legend, which is often in a size similar to or smaller than the direction word!  After seeing destinations larger than directions for so many years, this just looks wrong.  I suspect these signs are the result of going with the specified minimum size for each element, without regard for the proportions between elements.

[OracleUsr]

Isn't the MUTCD specification supposed to be 5:4 anyway?  I've seen signs in NC with what looks like much different sizes than that on the raised caps.

[OCGuy81]

Never been a big fan of the signage around John Wayne Airport.  The signs to find your airline, merge into what lanes, rental car returns, etc all seem so faded and old. Plus they're all in italics.   I like those nice blue guide signs most airports have.

[codyg1985]

I loathe the raised first letter on directions "North, East, South, etc." I realize that in typography that it can increase readability, however it destroys all aspects of centering and symmetry on overhead signage.

You'd love Texas then (and I agree with your statement).

... and California.  California does not use a raised first letter on cardinal directions on any of it's guide signs with the only exception being an I-5 pull through near the CA-126 junction.  Some newer reassurance assemblies (route shield + cardinal direction banner) have begun to feature a raised first letter but you have to look really close to notice it.

Tennessee has begun doing the raised first letter on cardinal directions, but it is also hard to notice on most signs, both shields and BGS. This sign in Memphis is an exception, however: http://g.co/maps/3ghyy

[myosh_tino]

California does not use a raised first letter on cardinal directions on any of it's guide signs with the only exception being an I-5 pull through near the CA-126 junction.  Some newer reassurance assemblies (route shield + cardinal direction banner) have begun to feature a raised first letter but you have to look really close to notice it.

Looks like Google Streetview has been updated on this portion of I-5 near Santa Clarita.  Here's the only guide sign in California that I've seen that features a raised cap...

[kharvey10]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048696/Road-signs-make-sense-unnecessary-removed.html

Sign clutter

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

The newer PennDOT Clearview doesn't look as bad, but I hate how they're mixing and matching fonts on the sign...if they're going to use Clearview, the entire sign (minus the route shield) should be Clearview as well...

Disagree.  Only the control legend should be Clearview.  The exit tab and distance legend - in caps, where clearview has no advantage - should be FHWA and ALL numerals should be FHWA.  Don't get me started again on how hideous Clearview numerals are.

And that's my 'tolerant' view.  My 'intolerant' view is that Clearview should not be used, period.

[OracleUsr]

US-43|72...I agree.  It looks hideous.

[CL]

I disagree. I've become less a fan of Clearview as time has passed, but I still think the only thing that should remain the old FHWA font on a Clearview sign is the numerals inside route shields. Period. Utah, in its ephemeral experiment with Clearview, did this, and I think it looks better than having exit tab, the distance, everything except the destination name/street name be in Clearview.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

We already know I don't like the font, so I'm not going to get into that.

Everyone admits there is no advantage to using Clearview in all-caps, so why make that Clearview?

And the numerals are hideous.  Just hideous.  I would honest-to-goodness take Arial/Helvitica numerals over Clearview numerals.  That's how bad I think Clearview numerals are.

Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

[hbelkins]

Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

In the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

[ctsignguy]

Basically, the only Clearview signs I've seen in person that I could put up with are those like I described - with only the control legend in Clearview, everything else FHWA.

In the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

Oh, great....and i always wondered if there were clowns running the FHWA with these crazy ideas they have had the last several years...

[Scott5114]

And the numerals are hideous.  Just hideous.  I would honest-to-goodness take Arial/Helvitica numerals over Clearview numerals.  That's how bad I think Clearview numerals are.

In Clearview's defense, I've always thought Helvetica has particularly nice numerals. Actually, Helvetica in general is a nice font, it just looks horribly out of place on road signs.

[hbelkins]

In Clearview's defense, I've always thought Helvetica has particularly nice numerals. Actually, Helvetica in general is a nice font, it just looks horribly out of place on road signs.

I think that's just because we're used to FHWA.

[Scott5114]

I'm sure that's most of it. Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance, and at my work place a good many of the signs (all of which say things like office names and stuff like "Delta 8935") are done in outlined Arial, which doesn't look terrible.  Another part of it is probably that the standard font sizes are designed to maximize legibility when FHWA fonts are used, and so Arial doesn't work as well. I wonder, too, if perhaps the Interstate shield was designed to complement some arcs and such found in the FHWA Series fonts–Jake, have you found any familiar looking numbers in the trig of both of them?

[agentsteel53]

I'm sure that's most of it. Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance, and at my work place a good many of the signs (all of which say things like office names and stuff like "Delta 8935") are done in outlined Arial, which doesn't look terrible.  Another part of it is probably that the standard font sizes are designed to maximize legibility when FHWA fonts are used, and so Arial doesn't work as well. I wonder, too, if perhaps the Interstate shield was designed to complement some arcs and such found in the FHWA Series fonts–Jake, have you found any familiar looking numbers in the trig of both of them?

I've always thought Helvetica/Arial/Univers/Grotesk/anything vaguely from that family was an okay font, but nothing I'd splatter the world with.  I'd use Series D on transit signage as well!

I have never taken a detailed look at the relationships between shield shapes and font arcs.  The only thing that comes to mind is that both FHWA Highway Gothic and the basic shield shapes (US, interstate) use solely circular arcs - never elliptical, parabolic, bezier, or something more complex than that.  So that gives an innate harmony of "circles within circles", adding to the slightly bizarre effect that stretched shields and fonts have when we see them.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

In the newspaper business, they used to call that mixing of fonts a circus layout.

Then, by all means, bring on the circus layout.

[CL]

Helvetica looks awesome on transit signage, for instance

I verily say unto you that yes, I am in agreement with this. Helvetica on station signs, information displays on buses and LRVs, etc looks stellar. However, please don't compare Helvetica with Arial (I know Jake is scoffing at this). Arial to me looks tacky and cheap, but Helvetica (when used in the right contexts) looks classy. In other regards I'm not a huge font snob, but the Helvetica/Arial difference is huge to me.

I'll be honest, I'm a little sick of the proliferation of the FHWA fonts (well, really Interstate). The Interstate equivalent to series E is okay, but when a company adopts the series C equivalent for all of its marketing, branding etc I find it long-in-the-tooth and tiresome. Call me crazy, but there you have it.

[Duke87]

Use of a T-intersection sign mounted sideways in place of a side street sign:


Would be a curiousity if it was just an occasional oddity, but this error is rampant.

[Ian]

They have some of those sideways T-intersection signs around here as well.