The Best of... Clearview?

[AsphaltPlanet]

^ I totally agree. To me the contro city text on that sign looks gigantic.

[Central Avenue]

I suppose I'm in the minority here, in that I prefer a sign to be either in all Clearview or all FHWA.

Solely from an aesthetic point of view, an all-Clearview sign looks better and more consistent to me than one with the typefaces mixed.

[mjb2002]

Beaufort County, S.C. is using Clearview on Interstate 95 now.

[Brandon]

I suppose I'm in the minority here, in that I prefer a sign to be either in all Clearview or all FHWA.

Solely from an aesthetic point of view, an all-Clearview sign looks better and more consistent to me than one with the typefaces mixed.

Then you would not like this courtesy of ISTHA:



Part of it is Clearview, part of it is FHWA.

[Takumi]

Are Clearview exit numbers approved?

The FHWA FAQ seems to suggest that they are not, since it says that numerals should be in the traditional lettering, but that is probably the most frequently violated rule if it is a rule....nearly every Clearview (except PennDOT, and even they sometimes do) user seems to use Clearview for everything on a BGS--exit numbers, all-caps action messages included.  Route numbers are the one exception where most states have gotten it right but there are some that seem to have not gotten the memo (Louisiana I-10 and I-12, many Michigan shields from early Clearview days, we are looking at you) for all their signage.

Good to know. Lately VDOT has been replacing perfectly fine gore signs with new ones containing Clearview, with much smaller numbers than their predecessors, making them harder to read!

[Ian]

I take issue with this one because of how large the destinations are in comparison to the shields and other text on the sign. It looks misproportioned. The Ohio example is more correct in that regard.

^ I totally agree. To me the contro city text on that sign looks gigantic.

Okay, if it weren't for the all caps Clearview in the "TOLL ROAD" and the gargantuan control cities, I would absolutely approve of this sign.

[PHLBOS]

Okay, if it weren't for the all caps Clearview in the "TOLL ROAD" and the gargantuan control cities, I would absolutely approve of this sign.

One BGS that has seemingly large control city lettering (in Clearview) is the recently-opened EXIT 329 (for Henderson Road) off I-76 West between Gulph Mills and King of Prussia.  The lettering for the King of Prussia and Norristown control cities are (or at least appear) huge on those BGS'.  Complete overkill IMHO, especially for an unnumbered road.

[formulanone]

Benton, Texas along SH121:

[J N Winkler]

I don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

[kphoger]

I don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

It may be within specs, but I do agree that it seems out of proportion.  Perhaps there's not enough green space around things to make it seem in proportion better?  You're more the expert on that, for sure.  Could that be it?

[mcdonaat]

I prefer the Clearview/FHWA hybrid signs. The lettering is clear if done right, and the numbers are what you'd expect to see posted as North US 55.

[Brandon]

I prefer the Clearview/FHWA hybrid signs. The lettering is clear if done right, and the numbers are what you'd expect to see posted as North US 55.

Like this from IDOT?  Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.

[Ian]

Like this from IDOT?  Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.

The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.

[J N Winkler]

I don't quite understand the complaints about oversized lettering--this is a ground-mounted sign and the primary destination legend looks to be 20" UC, which is perfectly acceptable for ground-mounted signs on the approaches to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

It may be within specs, but I do agree that it seems out of proportion.  Perhaps there's not enough green space around things to make it seem in proportion better?  You're more the expert on that, for sure.  Could that be it?

The spacing looks fairly close to specification to me--it is the extra-wide space between the "1" and "1/2" in "1 1/2 MILES" that looks strange.  However, "TOLL ROAD" is in what looks like 12" upper-case Clearview letters rather than 15", which is what it would have to be in order to be a true "small caps" treatment in relation to the primary destination legend.  The shield also has a busy design with Series C digits, so I think it would have been worthwhile to increase its size from 36" to 48", as is occasionally done when the primary destination legend is 20" UC.

I am tempted to try some mockups--if I actually go ahead and do them, I will post them here.

[J N Winkler]

I have now gone ahead and prepared mockups.  They are all done at the same scale, and for simplicity omit the exit tab and use an ordinary Pa. 43 shield rather than the special Pa. Tpk. 43 shield (I just didn't feel like digging up Publication 236M).  I also left "TOLL ROAD" in Series E Modified to match the current practice in many PennDOT districts of using Clearview only for the primary destination legend.  On the actual sign, as already noted, "TOLL ROAD" appears in Clearview, but for purposes of this comparison the typeface is less important than the relative size.  For comparison, here is the original:



As a warmup, here are two versions of the sign, one with FHWA Series E Modified and the other with Clearview 5-W, both using 16" UC for the primary destination legend:





Both of the following examples use 20" UC for the primary destination legend.  The first uses 15" UC for "small caps" all around:



The second uses 12" UC for "TOLL ROAD" but retains 15" UC for the distance expression:



The last of these examples shows how the 12" legend creates the false perception that the primary destination legend is oversized.

Here is a side-by-side comparison:


See?

Edit:  After looking at the right-hand side of the side-by-side comparison for a while, I now suspect the distance expression uses 12" for the "small caps" too.  (This is also not unusual for ground-mounted signs with 20" UC for primary destination legend.)

[national highway 1]

Like this from IDOT?  Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.

The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.

I agree, too. 

[myosh_tino]

Heh, looks like JN Winkler beat me to it with regards to drawing the Pennsylvania exit sign for Penn Turnpike Rt 43.  Here are my drawings for that sign and I did take the time to add both the Pennsylvania state route and turnpike route shields to my sign-making library...

The 100% FHWA sign...


FHWA/Clearview Hybrid (Clearview is standard 16" capital letter height)...

The shield also has a busy design with Series C digits, so I think it would have been worthwhile to increase its size from 36" to 48", as is occasionally done when the primary destination legend is 20" UC.

FWIW, according to the sign specs for the Pennsylvania route shields I downloaded from the PennDOT website, there are only specs for a 36" shield... nothing larger, nothing smaller.

[DaBigE]

Like this from IDOT?  Only, I dislike the placement of the "TOLL" banner.

The numerals on the I-355 shield also look a bit compressed.

I agree, too. 

Thirded. Also, the cardinal should be in the FHWA series as well.

[txstateends]

Benton, Texas along SH121:

I hope you meant Bedford.

[formulanone]

Benton, Texas along SH121:

I hope you meant Bedford.

Yeah, that was it...Recollection by head, not map.

[national highway 1]

A few Clearview Texas highway shields, the state that prides itself on having the 'best' Clearview in the US:

[vtk]

As far as I can tell, Pennsylvania does the best Clearview from a technical perspective, by only using it in white 5W on green for destinations on guide signs.  All the other places that use Clearview regularly seem to use it also for sign elements that the feds say shouldn't be in Clearview.

On the other hand, from an aesthetic perspective, if you can do all your signs using only Clearview, making proper use of the different widths without stretching, and using the correct B or W variant depending on contrast orientation, and don't otherwise screw up the metrics of your signs, you've got some good Clearview.

[PHLBOS]

As far as I can tell, Pennsylvania does the best Clearview from a technical perspective, by only using it in white 5W on green for destinations on guide signs.  All the other places that use Clearview regularly seem to use it also for sign elements that the feds say shouldn't be in Clearview.

On the other hand, from an aesthetic perspective, if you can do all your signs using only Clearview, making proper use of the different widths without stretching, and using the correct B or W variant depending on contrast orientation, and don't otherwise screw up the metrics of your signs, you've got some good Clearview.

Not so fast there.  You must've overlooked some of the earlier posts.  I've seen plenty of Clearview Gone Wild on many PA signs... mostly ones from the PTC.  And just when one thinks that both PennDOT and PTC finally get it with regards to when to use and when not to use Clearview; one sees a new sign that does not display such restraint. 

Apparently, not all districts are on the same page as of yet.