#Clearview font road signs software

Should I just use what the software produces? I've seen fractions displayed in many different ways and my software does not allow me to display fractions as described in the MUTCD.Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?.

Since Clearview is so much more legible than the old highway lettering, and it was based on using upper- and lower-case letters, should I now display all lettering on signs using upper– and lower-case letters as I've seen illustrated in some documents?.

Does this mean I can still get better legibility by using Clearview even with a letter height smaller than the Standard Alphabets?.

If I reduce the letter height, can I still use Clearview as long as it provides the same legibility as the Standard Alphabets?.

When designing signs with Clearview, do I use the letter height criteria from the MUTCD in the same way as the Standard Alphabets?.

#Clearview font road signs series

Does this mean I should no longer use Series E-modified on signs?.How was the legibility improvement achieved?.Under what conditions can I expect to see a benefit from using Clearview?.If my agency has adopted Clearview, should I revise all the standard positive-contrast signs to use Clearview as well?.Should we use Clearview alphabets on all our signs? I read in a newspaper article that Clearview lettering is significantly better than the old highway lettering we use on our signs.Does FHWA now require Clearview in place of the Standard Alphabets?.Additional information regarding the use of traffic control devices under an Interim Approval can be found in the Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD. The FHWA has prepared the following information to assist agencies, sign designers, and sign fabricators in understanding the application and design parameters to be consistent with the Interim Approval if an agency has chosen, and received FHWA approval, to use the alternative alphabets. The use of this alternative lettering style is completely optional and is neither required nor recommended. The formats apply to mixed case legends with descending letters.> Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet Frequently Asked Questions - Design Criteria for the Use of Alternative Alphabets Subject to Interim Approval IntroductionĪ number of questions have been asked with regard to the Interim Approval dated Septemfor the alternative highway sign letter style, Clearview TM. The proportional systems used for layout are not approved by the FHWA but are an alternative that can simplify layout and make guide signing visually consistent. The designs maintain uniform and consistent use of typefaces.

The designs were prepared to be compatible with the MUTCD with functional deviations by our team that are reviewed and explained. The attached studies follow a logical design process based on functional requirements of guide and information signs. We hope this work will be scientifically reviewed. Signing for Cycling breaks with some 1961 MUTCD conventions but its functional attributes are based on signage work that has been studied. Integral to the design is an animate symbol for cyclist and use of mixed case. New York City, Portland, OR and the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul MN were reference locations while city traffic engineers and cycling advocates nationwide reviewed our work. The project was initiated to solve inconsistencies and functional holes in the 1978 MUTCD Chapter 9 for cycling. We prepared a conceptual plan to illustrate how an ordered system of signage enhances the effectiveness of individual signs and groups of signs. This section presents an example from our project, Signing for Cycling. The proportion-based grid system concept for conventional road guide signs and for freeway & expressway guide signs were peer reviewed and presented at the Transportation Research Board and published by TRB and ASCE. With standardized use of mixed case Clearview, we designed layouts to give order and to aid glance reading. Local interpretation of standards by city and state highway departments vary regulatory and warning signs with different type sizes and formats contributes to roadway clutter while new signs for cyclists – sometimes not well differentiated from signage for motorists – add to visual overload. While uniformity was a primary goal in the 1961 edition of the MUTCD, the absence of engineered performance standards for graphic elements, or a cohesive approach to design limited uniformity to sign color. With the development of an enhanced system of typefaces that provide longer viewing distances and enhanced readability using existing standard letter sizes, the design team began to identify more consistent methods to format guide and positive contrast signing.