Cutout greenout

[NE2]

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.421937,-111.983604&spn=0.016333,0.033023&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.421937,-111.983604&panoid=YT5U_Hepa8Ue3f-shDOVIQ&cbp=12,318.61,,1,-31.08

[Darkchylde]

Wow. Interesting find.

[Alps]

Snarf.

[agentsteel53]

the state route shield was not a demountable element?

[Brandon]

I'm just amazed that the greenout was cut to shape rather than simply going the typical route and using a square or rectangle.

[agentsteel53]

I'm just amazed that the greenout was cut to shape rather than simply going the typical route and using a square or rectangle.

I'll bet they took a standard shield blank and painted it green.

[thenetwork]

I'm just amazed that the greenout was cut to shape rather than simply going the typical route and using a square or rectangle.

I'll bet they took a standard shield blank and painted sheeted it green.

FTFY

[agentsteel53]

I'll bet they took a standard shield blank and painted sheeted it green.

FTFY

is the non-reflective stuff sheeting as well?  I honestly do not know.

[Alps]

I'll bet they took a standard shield blank and painted sheeted it green.

FTFY

is the non-reflective stuff sheeting as well?  I honestly do not know.

Nowadays, yes, either Engineer grade (Type I) or just plain non-reflective (no Type that I know of). They no longer paint anything.

[Duke87]

To answer the question of what's under the greenout.

Incidentally, I clinched AZ 143 last week. Was not aware there used to be another state highway right next door!

[agentsteel53]

They no longer paint anything.

do they even make anything non-reflective anymore? 

[Central Avenue]

You know, even if it is just a standard shield blank made green, it seems like this would be a weirdly time-consuming way to patch the sign. After all, if it's the same size as what it's covering, you gotta take the time to line it up precisely, as opposed to a square or rectangle that could just be made a little bit bigger than the shield.

[Alps]

They no longer paint anything.

do they even make anything non-reflective anymore? 

Black...

[agentsteel53]

Black...

as a background?  are there any signs which start as a substrate of black vinyl and then have a lighter color screen-printed on top?  I do not believe this to be the case, because screen-printing for highway signs (or digital printing, for that matter) usually is best done with a light substrate and applying darker colors. 

even signs which are ostensibly light-on-dark contrast, like an interstate shield or a STOP sign, start out as white blanks and have inverse features added.

but yes, you are correct that black is the one opaque foreground color in regular use: the rest are all translucent, to allow the reflectivity through.  thus my question: are there any non-reflective signs being currently made out there? 

[Alps]

Black...

as a background?  are there any signs which start as a substrate of black vinyl and then have a lighter color screen-printed on top?  I do not believe this to be the case, because screen-printing for highway signs (or digital printing, for that matter) usually is best done with a light substrate and applying darker colors. 

even signs which are ostensibly light-on-dark contrast, like an interstate shield or a STOP sign, start out as white blanks and have inverse features added.

but yes, you are correct that black is the one opaque foreground color in regular use: the rest are all translucent, to allow the reflectivity through.  thus my question: are there any non-reflective signs being currently made out there? 

I think you mean, "for highway use." No.

[agentsteel53]

I think you mean, "for highway use." No.

right.  I figured that was the universe of discourse.

does the current MUTCD provide either of the following?
1) certain signs not needing to be reflective or illuminated.  the 1961 MUTCD required all signs to be reflective or illuminated except certain parking signs.
2) the option for illuminated as opposed to reflective.  does anyone still do this??

I know that the definition of "reflective" was expanded to say "retroreflective both foreground and background, to have identical appearance during day and night" in the 2002 MUTCD.

[Alps]

I think you mean, "for highway use." No.

right.  I figured that was the universe of discourse.

does the current MUTCD provide either of the following?
1) certain signs not needing to be reflective or illuminated.  the 1961 MUTCD required all signs to be reflective or illuminated except certain parking signs.
2) the option for illuminated as opposed to reflective.  does anyone still do this??

I know that the definition of "reflective" was expanded to say "retroreflective both foreground and background, to have identical appearance during day and night" in the 2002 MUTCD.

Illuminated is certainly an option. And I forgot one class of signs that's non-reflective: backlit.

[agentsteel53]

Illuminated is certainly an option. And I forgot one class of signs that's non-reflective: backlit.

I think "backlit" is classified, for legal purposes, as "illuminated", no?  even though in the field they appear completely different.

is anyone still, in practice, making illuminated signs?

[Alps]

Illuminated is certainly an option. And I forgot one class of signs that's non-reflective: backlit.

I think "backlit" is classified, for legal purposes, as "illuminated", no?  even though in the field they appear completely different.

is anyone still, in practice, making illuminated signs?

Cities are starting to use them more and more for street names...

[Milepost61]

does the current MUTCD provide either of the following?
1) certain signs not needing to be reflective or illuminated.  the 1961 MUTCD required all signs to be reflective or illuminated except certain parking signs.
2) the option for illuminated as opposed to reflective.  does anyone still do this??

A lot of the signs around Denver International Airport, at least the original ones from when it opened in 1995, were non-reflective and had lights shining down on them from above. Some have been replaced with internally lit signs.

They also used an odd white-on-dark-brown scheme.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dia&ll=39.836058,-104.676104&spn=0.026923,0.055747&hq=dia&hnear=Denver,+Colorado&t=m&fll=39.827259,-104.713225&fspn=0.026795,0.055747&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.836386,-104.676101&panoid=Hctl35aazfkSeoHfUfrLLQ&cbp=12,184.23,,0,1.45