Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here's a couple of things that have been on my mind since the beginning of the project:

• Now that the Interstate shields are named "I-X.svg", this makes the naming of the old state-specific shields ("Interstate 390 (New York).svg", for example) a bit tedious, lengthy and outdated. What I propose is that these shields be renamed to "I-X (State).svg" or "I-X (ST).svg" to match the new Interstate shields.
• County route shields are currently named in the format "(County) County Route X (State).svg" although a county route sign for Orange County, New York would (theoretically) be the same sign for Orange County, Florida. What I propose is that the State abbreviation be dropped from the names of all county route shields and that the shields are reorganized on the commons by county name and not by state. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Orange County, NY doesn't use the standard pentagon, but rather a diamond with a county outline inside... ;) —Scott5114↗ 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, bad example. =) Oh well. In any case, I think the point I made is still clear, that in most cases the county shield is the same no matter what the state is. I knew someone was going to catch me on that example though... =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping out but I don't know how to create the shields. I had used SPUI to make shields in the past, but since he has parted ways with wikipedia, I am looking elsewhere for help. Can someone help me out on how to create them? What software to use? etc... I would prefer a free software if that is possible. Thanks. --Holderca1 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to impart my SVG knowledge to everyone here. I can write a quick how-to piece on the Designing sub-page if desired. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inkscape is very powerful for SVGs - and very free. I found that the be the best - Adobe Illustrator has many issues in it regarding SVGs. (besides not being free) --• master_son^{Lets talk} 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried using Inkscape, but couldn't figure out how to create the shields in it. A walkthough on Inkscape would be great, I couldn't figure out how to get the right font, what do you use as a starting point, the blank shield? --Holderca1 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted some comments over at the Designing page. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them over there. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey all. There's a number of shields currently on Wikipedia that would be better utilized on the Commons (ability to categorize them, etc.). Does anyone know of any policy regarding the migrating of images to the Commons and any procedure that needs to be carried out? For the record, the shields I'm referring to are shields for Colorado and the blank Washington shield. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is policy or not, but I do believe it is prefered to place all images on the commons. That way the other wikiprojects can access the images. Just in case someone wanted to write an article in Japanese on State Road 85 in Florida. --Holderca1 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As an extension of my comments a couple of sections up, here's my formal proposal for renaming state-specific Interstate shields and county route shields:

• Intra-state Interstate shields: To match the renaming of all neutered Interstate shields to "I-x.svg", intra-state Interstate shields should be renamed I-x (2-letter abbrev.).svg. Many of the state-specific shields need to be redone anyway (inaccurate borders, fonts, etc.), so moving the shields around won't be too much of a problem.
• County route shields: Because most counties across the United States use the standard pentagonal shield shape for county routes, there is no difference between shields in counties with the same name in different states (most of the time). For this reason, the current naming convention is flawed and the new convention should be County County Route x.svg.
  • There is an exception, however. Some counties do not use the standard blue pentagon and use other shield shapes/colors/etc. in their place. Shields in these cases should continue to use the current naming convention.

--TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Since no one's said anything about this in the 15 days that this issue has been on the table, I'm going to assume that everyone's in agreement and I'll begin to implement the changes. I'll hold off on the county route shields for now though, as that's a system not looking for a fix. There's nothing wrong with the way they are now (plus there's too many that would need "fixing"). What does need fixing are the interstate shields, though, so I'll work on getting these changed to the new format. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking for the exact dimensions of the Indiana shields with no luck. I decided to take the images from their MUTCD (MUTCD Indiana Supplement Part 2D) to design new shields, but it appears that they use different fonts on the same shield, for example, it appears on the example of IN 114, the font for "INDIANA" is font D, while the numbers are in font C. I have created a few examples,

Any feedback would be appreciated. --Holderca1 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, made a few adjustments, I think these are pretty close to the real thing, did some looking around and it appears that INDOT is not very consistent on their shields. --Holderca1 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From personal experience, Indiana Route shields look pretty much the same as Illinois Route shields, just the text "Illinois" changed to "Indiana". V60 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See this page [1] to explain my confusion. There are some versions of the shield that are very similar to Illinois, but some that are not, other than being black and white and square. The latest version of images that I created were based on the gif images that is currently being used on the Indiana pages. To be honest, I think the reason that I can't find any specs is that there aren't any, it looks like the state leaves it up to the districts or however its divided to create the signs, as long as they are black and white, square and say "INDIANA" at the top is okay. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure though. --Holderca1 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do they both use the same exact shields? Just curious, they are using the Massachusetts shields on the Maine pages, just wanted to make sure they were just not confusing the MA state abbreviation for Maine. --Holderca1 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a problem with the South Dakota shields. Please refrain from using the 2D shields for now until the issue has been resolved. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The shields have been repaired and are now functioning normally. • master_son^{Lets talk} 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to check to see if anyone has started working on SVGs for the Minnesota highway shields which are currently in PNG. I assume that we will need to convert them (however possible) - If I'm wrong, or otherwise, please advise. Thank you • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's started working on SVGs for Minnesota. There are templates on the commons for MN SVGs, however, so if anyone wants to take on that task, feel free. I'd do it myself but I have a personal backlog about as bad as the assessment one. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a note into the last one to make the rest of the PNGs (Sable232?) - and will take on the task otherwise • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no way to create SVG images. The only reason I could do the PNGs in the first place was because my drawing program had that capability. I can't use Inkscape at this time because it requires some kind of software that I don't have. --Sable232 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll start making the SVGs then. We'll have to convert the routebox to {{infobox road}} as well - All of the info on the old one can be retained during the conversion. Once I have a working copy I can send it by the wikiproject for clarification if needed • master_son^{Lets talk} 23:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, Bug ID 5463 is still around, because the US 92 shield(as well as plenty of others) is blank. ---- DanTD 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:US 92.svg purged and fixed. If you notice any more that appear blank either at certain resolutions or on their image page, post them here (as I can then purge them) or you can purge them yourself. See WP:PURGE for more details (though be advised that Commons images will need to be purged at the Commons, not locally). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, it's still disappearing, and so are US 98, FL 26, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 616, and 618. I posted some shields on the Florida State Road 50 page and had to upsize US 92 to get it to show up. There's a new exit list for Interstate 10 in Alabama which is missing US 98 shields, and a far as the infoboxes for Florida State Road 26, Florida State Road 54, Florida State Road 616, etcetera, well, see for yourself. ---- DanTD 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I say if you find shields that don't work after purging, request them at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Requests, make sure to state that they aren't working as the reason for recreation. --Holderca1 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You may try it out on the request page, but click "Preview" instead of save. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone has run into this problem with other shields, but according to the standard drawing for Tennessee shields, D font is used, the problem arrises on the 3 digit shields and using the height from the standard drawing, many do not fit on the shield. The example they list Tennessee 155 just so happens to fit, and designing that specific shield in Inkscape yields a shield that looks just like that shield, but with any 3 digit shield that doesn't have a one in it, it doesn't fit. On the shield created by SPUI awhile back, Image:Tennessee 840.svg, he used C font to get it to fit. I suppose I could manually adjust the width to get it to fit properly, but wanted others input. --Holderca1 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and finished all the shields that were requested, will get them uploaded this afternoon. I just manually adjusted the width without adjusting the height to fit them in. If they look odd, then I will work on it, if anyone has a 3-digit picture of a real shield, that would also be helpful. --Holderca1 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, everyone can disregard this, looking into a bit deeper, I pulled up the TN county maps and all the shields in question are of secondary state routes and use a different shield. I will correct the I-26 article when I complete and upload the shields. --Holderca1 17:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had figured it out, but some 3-digit routes don't fit on the secondary shields either. So I decided to go digging for photos of real life shields to solve the problem, now I am just more confused. Secondary Route 57 shield in C font, Primary Route 57 shield in D font, Primary Route 385 shield in C font, Primary Route 840 shield in D font, so I will just go with what works. --Holderca1 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the field, TN uses both C and D fonts on their signs. TN 54 is a prime example, in the field it has primary shields in both C and D fonts and older secondary shields in C...I seen this on my last run between Jackson and Covington, I can get pictures if you like, and someone please critique the shields that I've created, they are secondary TN 5, TN 78, and TN 181. Let me know if I goofed anywhere or if I could improve on anything Pepper6181 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to move an image or change its name in the commons? --Holderca1 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, there is no "move" link for images. You need to first re-upload the image another the new name, then tag the old one for speedy deletion saying that it has been renamed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

iirc, you tag the old image with {{duplicate|Image:IMAGENAME.jpg}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Florida has a specific design for their county roads that is different than what is used nationally, see here: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/rd/RTDS/17355s1-12of12.pdf, I had to redo the shields that I initially uploaded. It allows the use of D font for every shield. So just in case you need to make them in the future, make sure to follow this guide. --Holderca1 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just my browser, or is MediaWiki having a problem with the rendering of many of the CA shields? Compare:

Filename	25x20px	88x70px	100px	150px
Image:California 1.svg
Image:California 19.svg
Image:California 55.svg
Image:California 210.svg

If so, someone has to recreate these images again (or at least find out why there are errors when the MediaWiki software tries to convert the SVG code into these thumbnails). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I downloaded the faulty shields above, opened them and resaved them in Inkscape, and reuploaded them - they should work fine now. Not sure why, but resaving and reuploading seems to be the only way to permanently fix this pesky bug. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article I've expanded quite a bit, the US 275 shield does not show in the infobox, but it does show in the exit list further down the page. And it appears on other pages. Is there anything to be done about that? DandyDan2007 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, Finally most of the Highways declared Scenic Byways have at least stub articles. I would like to add a category and list page for the articles. Utah does sign these highways with a unique shield. Examples at: http://www.utah.com/art/misc/scenic_byway.jpg (used on page http://www.utah.com/byways/) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ut128.JPG (faintly visible). Can the graphic rendition at Utah.com (Utah Travel Council, state government agency) be used by wikipedia? Must we re-create our own? Or is it not legal to use even a re-created copy of the shield? Please advise? Also if we must re-create our own, any suggestions on who can help? I'm not a graphics artist and can't draw a straight line with a mouse and CAD software =-) Davemeistermoab 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless the shield is in the state's MUTCD supplement, I don't think it would be OK to use. It appears that one logo is used for all byways; this could be used in an article about the system of scenic byways under fair use. --NE2 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, a little new to doing this kind of stuff, but known about wikipedia for a while. Anyway, I've made some great looking old time US shields. However, I made them from taking images from other websites and I'm afraid they might not be valid. But I would be happy to share a sample with you guys, but I'm a little confused on what format I should use(EX: svg,jpeg?). Assistance would be greatly appreciated. (Guess you can call me a newbie? :) ) So, if you're interested I would be happy to share them with you. Of course I need assistance. Right now I'm somewhat, or very limited on what states I can do on the US highway shields because I lack a lot of letters of the alphabet(still searching). Thanks! -Mm555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm555 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

SVG is the preferred format in all cases. Perhaps you could make some derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_66_%28AZ_Old%29.svg ...that's the only old shield we have at the present time. A font containing all digits and letters used on the old signs is available at [2]. Make sure you upload to Commons, which allows for better categorization and usage by other projects. —Scott5114↗ 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find some time to upload them(Hopefully soon). The ones I made actually look a little different than the example you showed me. So I'll see if I can get them up sometime this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm555 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you type ~~~~ after your comment, it'll expand to a signature so the bot doesn't have to go back and sign it for you :) —Scott5114↗ 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the samples (They're kind of distorted, but the actual ones will be cleaned up and polished)[3]. I also found some budmo, but those are even more limited.Mm555 05:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina has come out with a new design: http://www.scdot-transfer.org/SCDOTPhotos/SignSC215NewDesign.jpg Anyone want to make some new shields? —Scott5114↗ 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any banners for County Route Shields. I've been wanting to use them for things like "OLD Marion County Road 441," "TRUCK Pasco County Road 587," "BUSINESS Pinellas County Road 611," and things like that. ---- DanTD 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a truck in commons:Category:Auxiliary Plates. I don't see business or old though. --NE2 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I should request them. ---- DanTD 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, Could I get some help for missing nevada shields? Specifically for the article I'm working on Nevada State Route 722? I've downloaded inkscape, and recall reading somewhere on fonts I need to install. But I can't find those help pages now. Davemeistermoab 17:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields/Design should help. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone make a shield for Clark County 215 (future Interstate 215 (Nevada))? The shield is certainly unique, and it's possible that it cannot be used on Commons. --Geopgeop (T) 12:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks now... any response? --Geopgeop (T) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt this weekend to make it. No, it probably can't be used on the Commons, and thus the only place we could use it would be the infobox next to the I-215 shield. What I'll do is I'll make a regular Clark County 215 shield that can optionally be used in places like the exit list and junction section of the infobox (and other infoboxes). Then we at least have something. Cheers :) --MPD ^{T / C} 00:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The current image is for county highways only; the specifications for the sign for state highways are at [4]. (The county sign is at [5] if anyone feels like fixing it; it doesn't use the correct pentagon.) Thank you. --NE2 22:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:California Scenic State.svg - Close as I could get, anyone want to adjust, feel free  — master son^{T - C} 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it's not perfect, but it's good enough for me. --NE2 01:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal to weaken the superseded images policy at commons, which is having effects at Wikipedia and USRD such as user confusion about which image to use. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, This has been replaced on commons. But the wikipedia bot that checks for duplicate images on commons has flagged the image as do not delete, as the image on commons is not identical (a different font was used on the image on commons). Can an admin or more experienced user help out? Davemeistermoab (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it to WP:IFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Interstate 270.svg

I think our three-digit Interstate shields are off. Yeah, I know that no state uses it, but we follow the SHS guidelines, and I'm fairly sure they say to use Series E for the text in the shield's crown, rather than Series D, like our current shields use. I know it used to be Series E, but this was apparently changed (by accident?) when they were moved to the I-x.svg convention. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created a template for an SVG version of the Connecticut state highway shield. Any thoughts or constructive criticism on this? If there's anything you dislike about it, let me know; I'll change it to the best of my ability.

Thanks in advance! —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The border width looks good (1/16 width of the shield). The numeral height seems a bit on the large side. My recollection is that it has a height that is exactly one-half of the shield height. Based on crude measurements of the rendered png file, it looks like it's 10% too tall and the spacing between the edge of the top border and the top of the numeral is somewhat smaller than the spacing between the edge of the bottom border and the bottom of the numeral. --Polaron | Talk 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, and I don't know if you checked this out, but the "X" in this example isn't converted to path; doing that would get the actual height (and correct font). —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if that is the case, all is good then. I don't have an SVG editor so only looked at the rendered PNG file. Thanks for making the template. --Polaron | Talk 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone's aware, all of Connecticut's major highway's shields have been uploaded as .svg's (see here) —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to start work on a batch of old-style US shields for Washington, and I figured I'd point out that right now there's no consistent naming convention or categorization for these types of shields on Commons. Might be something we want to work out ASAP... -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this format: Image:US 366 Cutout (TX).svg, I don't know if I have a preference though. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Would Image:Old US 77 (OK).svg work? It'd be a bit shorter....—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think -- were I to have a preference -- it would be for Image:Old US 77 (OK).svg. (I've seen both of the above "conventions", as well as at least one other.) What about categorization? Currently they're kind of strewn all over the place -- one's in the main US shield category, Michigan has a bunch in with their old state highway shields, Washington has a couple with their current state highway shields even though they have a separate category for their old ones...

I was thinking create a new subcat of the US shield category and put 'em there, and double-cat them in the former state highway categories where they exist, but not in current state highway shield categories? -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not include the year of the standard, like US 66 (1926) or US 77 (OK 1955)? --NE2 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, cuz I don't have a clue what standard I'm using? (Although it's probably 1926.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[6] has some scans of "Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display, and Erection of U. S. Standard Road Markers and Signs" (AASHO, January 1927), including the U.S. Highway marker. --NE2 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the year of the standard is largely unnecessary because the goal here isn't to create every type of shield that's ever existed. Basically I was just thinking one set of old shields to complement the sets of old state highway shields that some states use for decommissioned (!) highways. -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just made a simple gallery of Primary State Highway and Secondary State Highway shields from Washington predating from the 1970's.

The link is right below:

User:ComputerGuy890100/PSH Shields

I hope this is a help as a resource! — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, does this subproject give any guideline for the use old-style shields? I ask this because User:Freewayguy has been very vocal about his opposition to the Roads in Maryland Project's use of state-name Interstate shields, which are no longer officially in use by Maryland. He has even gone so far as to tag them for speedy deletion. We've been using them simply as an example of the older style; our project's shield guideline has never recommended that they be used in routeboxes etc. If there isn't a guideline here, it would probably be a good idea to write one that says where they can be used so as to avoid any further confusion.-Jeff ^(talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that this subproject/task force has any guidelines for anything, whether it be shield usage, placement, etc. Currently, any guidelines that were developed by the USRD task forces (which is what the term for this appears to be based on the USRD navbox) are now part of the USRD overall standards page, so discussion on this should probably be shifted there. (On a personal note, I find it incredibly sad that edit wars and POINTy deletion taggings have arisen from such a minor topic as this.) – TMF 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I completely forgot that all the task forces' standards pages were merged. I'll go ahead and move this discussion there. I too am concerned about Freewayguy's behavior. Although the speedy taggings apparently happened a while ago, I just found out about them today, which is what prompted me to bring this to USRD.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have both? I found the second doing a Kansas article (before changing it to the Kansas shield), and it seems superfluous if we have the first. DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The first is using the new naming conventions of the shields, the second is the depreciated naming convention for Interstate shields. I haven't been fully up to date on anything lately, but from what I know the Commons won't delete the superfluous shields. Just use the "I-xx.svg" shields. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Image:Interstate 135.svg is more true to the MUTCD. I could have sworn reading that INTERSTATE was supposed to be in Series E on 3-digit shields...—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's more true to the MUTC is irrelevant since all other Interstate shields are "I-xxx.svg". If it is the case however that the second example is more correct, then the first example should be updated with the file of the second example as a new version. I couldn't find anything in the MUTCD on it. They use the Series E, but it's not diagrammed out, just on a few examples of signage in relation to interchanges. However in 99% of all my pictures of Interstate markers, they use (Series C?) the thinner one. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just now found out that Series E is correct, and where it comes from. In SHS, the only shield diagrammed out is the two-digit shield, but in the table below the diagram showing the measures, the font widths are specified. For two-digit shields, the word "Interstate" (Item L) is to be in Series C, while on three-digit shields, it's to be in Series E (unmodified). Note the "L" column in the 3-digit rows. This needs to be corrected on most of our Interstate shields (they were at one point all Series E, but when we migrated to the I-xxx convention, it seems to have been abandoned). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone's aware, it looks like Louisiana has switched to white on black shields. See [7][8]. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this but I think we should double-check with LaDOTD to confirm this is an official change and not just a contractor error. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The first link is an m.t.r thread with someone who already has, and there's a second thread on mtr containing the same thing as well. Not a reliable source of course, but I'm pretty sure this is real. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me. We should probably begin switching over. Anyone can do it; just make the green parts white and the white parts black, delete the border, and it should be about the same. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, doesn't seem like the specs could be too shockingly different. Should we keep the old ones and upload new ones at a new naming convention (à la South Carolina)? -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The only bad thing about that is that it would require AWB runs to swap over to the new images. However, that would mean the old shields are still available for use on decommed hwys. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can do the AWB run, and any pages using {{jct}} won't even need that. --NE2 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually emailed DoTD last night and got a response from them concerning these signs this morning:

Mr. Brown,

The original green and white state route marker signs will be replaced by the new black and white signs over time. Green ink is much more difficult to use than black ink, which results in higher fabrication costs. Although there is no written DOTD policy on the color of state route markers, the Federal Highway Administration's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices encourages states to adopt a uniform state marker containing black numerals on a white area surrounded by a black background.

Thank you for your inquiry. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.

Sincerely,
Dustin Annison
Public Information Officer
Department of Transportation and Development

Looks like this is a permanent change, and not contractor error. Its sad to seem 'em go. --Mr. Brown (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've checked out the links included at the top of this thread. I'm a moron. --Mr. Brown (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link that shows the new black and white looking shields. Plus, I think that we should name the new shields, LA x.svg and keep the green and white shields the way they are now. --Ltljltlj (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In my travels while trying to help fix New England roads, I noticed that the Massachusetts and Maine shields are the same, which needs to be fixed. In Maine, they either use the double bordered square style (which is scarce), or the borderless shield. The Massachusetts one is single bordered... I guess either no one noticed before, or it is a job to fix each SVG file. Just a notification!

Take a look here for the pictures:

http://www.roadgeek.org/nhroads/nhends/ME113/

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a better picture, I only saw the two pictures toward the bottom of that page that have a picure of the shield and you can't really tell what it looks like since they are off in the distance a bit. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not... I haven't been to Maine in a long while, so there is a possibility that they might have changed again. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be some clearer pictures here. --Polaron | Talk 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging from that link, I'd say Maine shields look "single-bordered" to me... that is, virtually identical to Mass shields. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, here is a nice closeup photo: [9]. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Maine, and the MA shields are exactly the same... P.S. whoever loaded the .svg's for the MA shields, if I could request a couple more that I need to work on ME state route articles. I've created articles for Rts. 164, 228, and 228T so far. If whoever is creating those wants to just leave a message on my talk page, and I can then let you know which others are needed later. I've done those 3 so far, as those are the roads I have 'clinched'. I could also use a 161, and 163, as I hope to clinch those in the near future... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the pic for 228 is already up, the pics I need for the moment are 161, 163, 164, and 228T... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple photos I just took today of the ME State Route signs, I think the MA signs work perfectly... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Been to both states many times and the shields are identical. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we came to consensus that all 20px shields were to be neutral and that 70px shields were to be as the state used them, this chart is for future reference. Alaska has been removed since there are no signed interstates there; it is replaced by District of Columbia.

State	20px	70px	State	20px	70px
Alabama	Neutral		Montana	Neutral	Big
Arizona	Neutral	State	Nebraska	Neutral	Neutral
Arkansas	Neutral		Nevada	Neutral
California	Neutral	State	New Hampshire	Neutral	Neutral
Colorado	Neutral		New Jersey	Neutral
Connecticut	Neutral		New Mexico	Neutral
Delaware	Neutral		New York	Neutral	Neutral
District of Columbia	Neutral	Neutral	North Carolina	Neutral	Neutral
Florida	Neutral		North Dakota	Neutral
Georgia	Neutral		Ohio	Neutral
Hawaii	Neutral		Oklahoma	Neutral	State
Idaho	Neutral	Big	Oregon	Neutral	Big
Illinois	Neutral	Neutral	Pennsylvania	Neutral	Neutral
Indiana	Neutral		Rhode Island	Neutral	Neutral
Iowa	Neutral	State	South Carolina	Neutral
Kansas	Neutral		South Dakota	Neutral
Kentucky	Neutral		Tennessee	Neutral
Louisiana	Neutral		Texas	Neutral
Maine	Neutral		Utah	Neutral	Big
Maryland	Neutral		Vermont	Neutral
Massachusetts	Neutral	Neutral	Virginia	Neutral	Neutral
Michigan	Neutral		Washington	Neutral	Big
Minnesota	Neutral		West Virginia	Neutral
Mississippi	Neutral		Wisconsin	Neutral
Missouri	Neutral	State	Wyoming	Neutral	Big

The Oklahoma subproject would like to request an exemption to the blanket 20px neutral shield rule, because the shields which Oklahoma uses have subtle but noticeable differences at the 20px level: the digits are larger and more closely spaced than the neutral shield. Compare , , . These shields are based on ODOT standards. This exemption can occur only at the statewide level (i.e. let neutral shields remain on the national articles where other states' shields are present for consistency reasons). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Scott, for the record the digits are nominally equal in size. You are probably experiencing an optical illusion caused by anti-aliasing at 20px. I measured both I-35 shield numbers in Inkscape (I had to resize the OK shield to 601x601px to make a direct comparison); height of I-35.svg numeral 5 is 245.677px, height of I-35_(OK).svg numeral 5 is 244.008px. Thus the OK sheild numeral is 0.7% smaller. The OK numerals are closer together and 8px lower @601px shield height. Honestly, these differences are trivial. The legibility is the same, the font is identical, and in fact the OK numbers are actually very slightly smaller in vector form. The state project may want to use them for state project reasons, if you have to, but it is an essentially parochial issue. The problems that prompted the discussions of the past months were caused by editors indescriminately changing shields and templates without bothering to explain their actions. The end result was a lot of wasted time. We need to avoid having new and/or uninformed editors making incorrect or pointless edits like those of the past. The {{jct}} and {{infobox road}} templates exist to make editing, updating and reverting easier. The customization of junction lists and infoboxes forces the use of non-template coding, so my opinion remains that the advantages of using neutral shields at small sizes far outweigh those of having it become a state preference. Sswonk (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen the original discussion since it wasn't really discussed at any length by very many users. I'd like California at the very least to revert back to the use of the state shields in the junction section at the 20px size as was being done for the last 4 years. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally be fine with both of those states using them on the state-specific articles at 20px. Oklahoma because Scott makes a good point about the legibility of the shields, and California because actually I don't want to mess with Cali. If you want to replace them, use straight code and not the jct template. That'll work for the infobox, for the exit list, it'd be more tedious. Isn't there a "shield1=no" parameter? But like I said, it's my opinion. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me add that in any case, I would not support adding state-name shields to the infobox if it was a mainline (2di) intrastate interstate (for example I-66 or I-97, but neither of those states use name shields, just an example), and I only support them at 20px anyway if there is a convincing argument, such as Scott's above. But that is, once again, my own opinion, and now I'd be interested to hear other opinions on the matter. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for was just the state specific articles not the mainline ones. I've no problem with the mainline articles having the generic shields. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I just did what I was asked to. But who cares if the shield at 20px isn't exactly the same as it looks on signs produced to the specs? It's instantly recognizable as an Interstate shield, and that's all that's necessary. Go do something productive like painting the DOT maintenance shed. --NE2 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a couple of people so far do care. But no reason to get defensive about it. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The implication was that you're not people if you care --NE2 20:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears nobody really has a problem with the OK exemption. I'm amending the table to state this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since no one is objecting to California either I've also changed that. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to both. Scott, we're all about consistency here, and if we have a national route with an infobox that has a special shield for Oklahoma, then that's just inconsistent, which we certainly shouldn't be. Same goes for California, but going deeper than that, California's shields as thumbnails look awful with the numbers barely visible. Guys, why can't we just use the neutral shields on national articles? They are only meant for illustration to help the reader, and they can see the proper shields on their respective state articles. For now, I'm reverting the change in the table and replacing both with "neutral," for now at least. Also, putting "big" for the states that use the special shields. CL — 23:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things I see wrong with that argument though, one, they're not national routes, at least not in California. All Interstates in California are by definition state routes, thus to me the state specific interstate shield would be more accurate (and even if a tad harder to read the accompanying text link more than makes up for it as would putting the 3di's at 25px). And the second issue I see with using the generic ones is that they're not demonstrative of what actually exists in states that don't use the generic ones. Just as we use the California specific US route shield for the same reason in that state (ie the national one isn't used there) wouldn't the same logic apply to interstates? Gateman1997 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we talking about using California-specific shields on state-specific articles such as Interstate 5 in California? In that case, yeah, I'm all for that. I just don't want state-specific shields on articles such as Interstate 5. CL — 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes we're talking about state specific Interstate articles like Interstate 80 in California or Interstate 405 (California), not the primary Interstate 5 type articles. A recent change removed the state specific interstate shields from the state specific articles in both the exit lists and infoboxes. I'd like to see that changed back to how it was for the last several years. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case just revert those changes. Whoever made them neutral shields doesn't mean they are right. I don't get why we are making such a big deal out of this, let's just do what we have done before. CL — 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said before, it's the jct template that changed, not the article. Don't use the jct template, and you can have your California shields. Easy. Have at it. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why has it been changed? CL — 01:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering too, both why was it changed and how can we revert it? I've been going through and changing it hard code on various pages but there has got to be a way to undo the change for states like OK and CA that doesn't involve hard codes changes that will take weeks to complete if not months. It was a single change to the jct template in the first place that made the change, I'm just not sure how to undo it but someone must know. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That was consensus on the other page, to have 20px state-neutral shields. Since jct template calls state shields when given a state (provided they're available), that wasn't working. Making "state=NA" then doesn't give the right links or I suppose not even the right state route shields. I don't know all the details of the syntax, I don't mess with it, but jct template was not working the way it should for 48 out of 50 states. Before people started using the jct template, it was hard code, as it was for years. I'd imagine the syntax is a mess for {{jct}}, so I can't answer the question. If "state=CA" or "state=OK", could it call a state-name shield for just those states? But then what to do for national articles such as Interstate 5 or Interstate 40? There will always be a problem, but the way it is as of now is the most beneficial to the most people, so that West Virginia doesn't end up with state name shields erroneously. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? --MPD ^{T / C} 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So the real issue is that the jct template isn't working properly. When given a state perameter like CA or OK and isn't pulling up the state specific shields? As for the "consensus" it appears a new consensus has been reached on this page to use the state specific shields on state specific articles. So for now you're telling me hard code is the only way to do that. That's fine, I can hard code for the next few months I guess. Just unfortunately such a sweeping change can't be undone as easily as it was done. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The template is working, just using generic shields for small sizes. I just changed CA to use state shields. Sswonk (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. For future reference how did you do it? Oklahoma may also like to do the same thing it seems. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I changed OK right after the last post. It is a template edit, rather complicated to explain. Sswonk (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, see, the exemption I'm requesting is for 20px shields on articles of a statewide scope (state highways, state-detail articles only). That is, on Oklahoma State Highway 152, for example, I'd like the junction list to continue using the state shields. I'm not seeing where this is a problem, given the above differences. I agree that for articles of a national scope where multiple states are involved, it looks better to use neutral shields throughout. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now that I've read the conversation above it looks like everyone gets this. OK's articles generally don't use the jct template, but browse would be affected by what infobox road and jct uses... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I may not be currently active within the project, but I thought I'd give some input just to save you the trouble of dealing with one state. This has already been discussed ad nauseam at MDRD. The consensus there has been that we only use the neutered shields in 20px icons and in the routebox, and to use state-name shields somewhere in the article body and identify them as historical shields.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I want to know who exactly changed the jct template, and where it can be modified. Also, seems as if consensus is to do what we have been doing all this time, use state-specific shields on state-specific articles, like Utah State Route 186 and Interstate 90 in Washington. Since, as far as I know, the jct template was changed without discussion, I might as well go ahead and change it back, no? CL — 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• County, that is a definite NO. I understand that AAroads' interstate-guide.com is a disputed source, however I tend to trust this paragraph since at least for the states east of the Mississippi it is correct:

  Even though the map shows those states that still actively place state-named shields, many states have several Interstate shields remaining, including Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey, and Kansas. Other states have few, if any, shields remaining, including Delaware (only for Interstate 95), Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. We challenge anyone to find an Interstate shield with the word "Oregon" or "Utah" in it: Dan Stober found only one state-name standalone shield in the Beehive State, and we were able to locate just one for Interstate 70 in Fishlake National Forest on 10/18/04.

  Outside of the inconsistent size issue which is something I have decided isn't worth arguing over, this is what we are trying to avoid, having state name shields in lists in state articles where the state name shields are deprecated, no longer being posted or completely gone. As for how to revert to state name shields in templates where the state still does use them, as I did with CA and OK, the easiest thing for me to tell you is to look at my "Contributions" and scroll to where I changed CA and OK on November 7 between 0200 and 0300. It is pretty much the same for other states, just change the redirect for the particular state to a "I-{{{num}}}_(XX).svg", XX being the state abbreviation, but please don't do it for a state unless you are 100 percent sure that is what the state project wants to do and the information is accurate. Sswonk (talk · contribs) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was NE2, in the other discussion. "All now redirect to Template:Infobox road/Interstate/shield Interstate. --NE2 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)". He had my support and other support. I would still prefer we do it on a state-by-state basis, because unlike Oklahoma there are some states whose shields suck at 20px. Oklahoma's look nearly identical to the regular ones at such a small size, and I never like messing to California because I still vividly remember the SPUI days. Just look at . Personally, it doesn't make sense to me anyway why these are used at such a small size, but I'm willing to work on a compromise. If conclusive evidence can be found that they use the state-name shield, we can bring it up on a state-by-state basis. Even then, if you happen to be poor Iowa, the numbers can be made larger. I still support the notion that we should use only state-neutral shields at 20px. But whatever, I'm tired of this. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Except Iowa uses the old MUTCD standard from the 70s where the numbers are small like that. But I digress... --Fredddie™ 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make a frame for a route shield that includes a banner? I'm trying to add a single frame for New York State Truck Route 25 in a future article on County Route 48 (Suffolk County, New York), and while I was able to make one for Interstate 495 (New York), I haven't been so successful wih one for Truck Route 25. ----DanTD (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: The article County Route 48 (Suffolk County, New York) has already been created, but I still need a fram for the NYS Truck 25 shield and banner. ----DanTD (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Image:NY-25 Truck.svg --Fredddie™ 18:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ----DanTD (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Multiple image}} works better, although it seems to have issues at 75px. --NE2 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm posting in the right place. I was looking to get a vector graphic of a shield created for the Maryland Scenic Byways. There's a reference shield on that site, albeit small and low quality. This sample here is one of the better quality ones (root site is here, in case it denies hot linking). I still need to find time to drive some of these routes, but there doesn't appear to exist any organizational mechanisms in Wikipedia yet for categorizing these byways (Infobox, shield, etc..). I figured a shield was the best to start with, then an info box, and then figuring out how to organize and display the data and such (I'll hash this out with the US Roads/MD people down the road).

I've already tried looking for specification PDFs for the signs on the SHA Website, but nothing turned up. I've since e-mailed them, asking for any documentation, but haven't heard anything back yet.

If anyone's got a few spare minutes, and wants a challenge at designing such a shield, let me know at my Talk page (Just add a note under my to do list), and hopefully that'll buzz me via e-mail to check it out. I think this will need to be two distinct files -- first is the curved shield with the state flowers and says "SCENIC BYWAY", and the second will be the actual name of the highway, of which there are only nineteen total (currently). Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working on the shield for you, will let you know when completed. Sswonk (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! There already some kind of template out there that I missed that had some elements of this already? The flowers looked like the hardest part to authentically replicate (although, they appear to be derived from the MD welcome signs). Kumba42 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the right place to post this? I was looking for someone to create File:Circle sign 493.svg for use in the Meridian, Mississippi article. I would create it myself if the image was in another format, but I'm not familiar with creating svg's. If this is not the right place, please direct me to where I should ask, but the file should be similar to File:Circle sign 495.svg. If it's not too much trouble, 494 and 496 would also be useful, though they're not as important since they're not in the city's limits. Thanks in advance! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done and copied over to WP:USRD/S/R --Fredddie™ 06:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick look through the available shields in the Commons category for MD Route markers, and didn't immediately see this one available. Background is, in Charles County, Hughesville had a bypass run around it, which carries the designation of MD 5. The old alignment through Hughesville is signed on MDSHA documents as MD 625, but visibly carries green-on-white signs that say "Business 5". I dug around on SHA's website, and found the specifications for it, plus I have a few pictures. Was wondering if someone can cookup a modified MD 5 shield to fit this, as I eventually will try to fix-up the MD5 article for it.

Specs are here and a photo (including a zoom) of such signs in Hughesville, at the MD231/MD5 Intersection are here. The only thing the specs don't cover is what particular shade of green the signs are, but I believe it's a bit of a forest green. Kinda dark, but not too much so. Definitely seems to be quite a touch of blue visible.

If any more info is needed, please alert me on my Talk page. Thanks! Kumba42 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Fredddie™ 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Even though it's 241px, I'm guessing the SVG will expand/contract w/o degradation to the image in articles? Seems that the average MD Road shield is set at large resolutions of around ~2,400px (for two digit shields; 3-digit are wider) Kumba42 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SVG will scale accordingly. --Fredddie™ 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that all of the states' highway marker designs are in the public domain. However, the license tags are actually mostly incorrect in how these are tagged. In most cases, the Wikimedian that recreated the marker in digital form has "released" the file into the public domain, but that's not strictly correct because that person didn't have an ownership stake in the design to release it; the appropriate state would have the original ownership. Please help the project to research each state's specific status so we can update the licensing at commons:COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a new request page for the rest of the world's route markers (the more general term for shields) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Route markers. If you are willing to create graphics for other countries, please sign the participants list over there. Note that per discussion at WT:HWY, the USRD shield task force will remain separate. - Evad37 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no responses here and no activity on the HWY page in almost four weeks. There seems little point in having a request page and no-one to fulfill the requests. I'll trying pinging all the participants listed on this page, but if there's no positive response(s), it will probably end up shut down as a failed experiment. (Pings: @Master son, Holderca1, O, Sable232, and Kacie Jane:, @Jeff02, Rschen7754, Carpetmaster101, Mr. Matté, and Fredddie:, @Dalekusa, HighwayMaster, Michael J, Dough4872, and Citrusbowler:) - Evad37 [talk] 16:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So... Compare to the last two pages of the UDOT Sign Specification Manual... The two-digit shields are close but the three-digits are incorrect. I am not seeing a note on their website about public domain status though, as all their pages say (c) 2012 State of Utah... --AdmrBoltz 04:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Ljthefro and Imzadi1979: - Help maybe? --AdmrBoltz 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of MUTCD/state supplement image copyrights. Sorry I can't be of any major assistance... -- LJ ↗ 05:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: While I am not overly concerned on the (C) status, would you be able to create a new 3-digit template for UT, and maybe see if there are significant enough changes for the 1/2-digit shields to determine if we need to fix them, so that the bot can upload corrected shields? --AdmrBoltz 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I have been looking for this document for some time. I've seen some pictures of the new 3-digit shields on Flickr, and they are gorgeous. Well, as gorgeous as 5 square feet of aluminum can look. –Fredddie™ 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the © goes, we're fine. The TOO is pretty high in the US. –Fredddie™ 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, © goes, if the state supplement incorporates the content of the federal MUTCD, then we have the page I-1 declaration of PD status for the markers. See the NY template at commons:COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Utah MUTCD supplemental is PD. Page I-1. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... new templates. That is, if Inkscape would stop crashing on me. –Fredddie™ 21:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

–Fredddie™ 00:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Woot woot! Thanks. Request put in for the HRMB --AdmrBoltz 03:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. HRMB has been dormant for some time. –Fredddie™ 03:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Emailed the op. If needed, the source code is published, we may have to have someone take over... --AdmrBoltz 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would caution against overwriting everything. Since the wide shields are new in the last few years, we're going to want square shields for anything route that ended before 2010. –Fredddie™ 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Changed request. --AdmrBoltz 05:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I would use the "Utah X.svg" nomenclature rather than "Utah SR X.svg". In that case, we're only overwriting a handful of shields that aren't being used. –Fredddie™ 05:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wanna change the request? I've edited it enough today :P --AdmrBoltz 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WSDOT's page on their MUTCD. --AdmrBoltz 16:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The main MUTCD links all go straight to the FHWA MUTCD PDF files on their site. There is one link below the rest that links to Washington's modifications to the national MUTCD, wherein they detail every revision their state statutes make to the National MUTCD text/figures. So, it looks like there is a state supplement, per se—it's individual modifications and not a complete document or separate book, so likely not easily referenced. -- LJ ↗ 22:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

They have a supplement listed here. Most of it is the standard MUTCD items, but there are state-specific items (WA shields, for example). I didn't see any notice about copyright, but I can reach out to WSDOT to see if their supplement is copy-written or not. --AdmrBoltz 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a sign fabrication manual, not an MUTCD supplement (although does include some signs mentioned in their supplement). But I suspect that's what you're looking for anyway... -- LJ ↗ 03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Admrboltz and Ljthefro: I don't know you two know about commons:COM:USRD/L, the Licensing Department of the USRD project on Commons. We're working over there to get state-specific licensing templates created for each state so that things can be re-tagged by bot/AWB and corrected. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: thoughts on if this is a "state supplement" / good enough to get us a PD tag for WA? Also in the sign specification manual M1-601 is the trailblazer shield for WA. --AdmrBoltz 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. Aside from a few changes here and there, they use the federal MUTCD. The General link Washington MUTCD page posted above states "The 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the national standard for all highways open to public travel, was duly adopted by the Washington state secretary of transportation." The changes in the supplemental aren't enough to substantially change the federal MUTCD, which is in the public domain. –Fredddie™ 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wanna create the template, then I will retag all the shields? --AdmrBoltz 21:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Over the past 15 years or so I have noted five distinct types of Ohio route marker.

• Variant 1, the "classic" 1975 design
• Variant 2, the current version on which it looks like the WP graphics are based
• Variant 3, appeared mostly in the late 1990s; numbers are more compacted, and this version is recognizable by the black background stopping just short of the sign edges: three-digit; two-digit posted above another Variant 1
• Variant 4, appeared in the 2000s; as shown, it's a smaller sign for three digits; two digits have a version as well, roughly the same size as the other 2ds but identifiable by the east and west state borders converging to the south rather than being parallel
• Variant 5, very inaccurate, almost always used in detour signage

I have made sure to note that all of these are both found outside of cities (as noted at List of numbered highways in Ohio, cities maintain non-Interstate routes within their boundaries, so sometimes abominations show up, both gone now) and in multiple ODOT districts to assumedly eliminate the possibility of district-only origins. The first restriction may not be that important since through personal correspondence with ODOT workers it appears that ODOT manufactures markers then sends them to the cities.

My point to all this is that while I'm satisfied with the current WP graphics, I've been wondering if there are multiple statewide sources for marker design rather than just the Sign Design Manual, and if so whether this should be investigated. Mapsax (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, almost three months later I'm finding out that there was an odd near-coincidence. Obviously I only browse the USRD talk page now and then. Mapsax (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked before and I will ask again will some one please create this shield: To see the shield You can go on Google Street View to the intersection of Tennessee State Route 220 and Johnson Road in Atwood, Tennessee or US-70A and Norris Robinson Loop also in Atwood near West Carrol Jr/Sr High School on Google Street view. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm baffled by this request, since it was done in January.. –Fredddie™ 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Oh then why is not showing up on the article and in junction lists?? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops My Bad someone had put it in Wrong it the infobox and junction List. Sorry Fredddie. --ACase0000 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

On Commons you can see three different shapes for four-digit routes. Virginia always uses the circle, while Kentucky uses both the circle and the "elongated circle". I would think that circle sign x.svg should be the actual circle, but this would require some moving around on Commons. --NE2 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(There should also be a template for four-digit, since it's unclear what font size to use. The three-digit template uses the oddball 143.) --NE2 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Below 1000, this was handled back in 2011. Circles are circles, ellipses are ellipses, elongated circles are elongated circles. Anything that isn't right, like what you linked, should be moved to the correct title. But yes, there should be a four-digit circle template. I'll do it when I get home from work later today. –Fredddie™ 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Circle sign 4-digit template.svg, which uses 10-inch numbers. As for the other two circle signs, they both should only be using 12-inch numbers. –Fredddie™ 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the Circle sign X files are now circles. –Fredddie™ 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have resized all of the circle templates to be 600px tall so the numbers are 300px. The 4-digit circle numbers are 250px. –Fredddie™ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Salem District)#SR 102: SR 210 should probably be this style, and SR 102 might be cutout. In addition, how does the junction list work? Should old-style U.S. shields be used? Does anyone know for sure what types of shields were used in 1943 or 1955? Does it even matter, or is this just fanwankery for a handful of roadgeeks who want to see pretty pictures? --NE2 04:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't actually matter, other than it being slightly more accurate to use period shields. Former shields work by defining a separate type with a different shield (all other data can probably be set as an alias of the modern route type unless there is a reason it needs to be different). Convention is that these are named with the year the design was introduced, so if the modern type is "SR", the name of the type whose shield design was introduced in 1948 would be "SR 1948". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I think the juxtaposition of modern state route shields with 1926-style U.S. shields (which apparently lasted into the 1950s, at least in most states) looks rather silly. Is this how it's supposed to be? --NE2 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If 1926 shields are being used for US routes, contemporary state route shields should be used as well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So I'll change back to modern US shields until someone determines exactly when Virginia switched SR shields and creates the old ones. --NE2 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

At what point did the shields become this style? I also uploaded a U.S. Highway template in the same style. –Fredddie™ 22:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. --NE2 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently there are three practically identical images for each 1-2 digit number:

• File:Circle sign 80.svg
• File:Ellipse sign 80.svg
• File:Elongated circle 80.svg

Now that image redirects work, it would seem that the best course of action is to delete the latter two and redirect to the former. Does this sound reasonable?

(There's also File:Iowa 80.svg , which has a slightly different border and should not be redirected if this is in fact how Iowa does shields.)

Note: if there's a good reason the elongated circle uses a different font, it should be renamed to something that better reflects this. --NE2 03:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the elongated circle shields use Series C because Kentucky does. Would be worth looking into to see if that is actually codified by KTC anywhere (or if it's just a tendency) and if any other states currently use elongated circles but don't use Series C (I believe Oklahoma specified elongated circles with D prior to 2006, but whether or not that's important enough to justify taking into account here is questionable). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I look at the AARoads shield gallery, I see Series C circles more than I see Series D. So if we were to implement image redirects, I would !vote for Series C. With regards to Iowa, I switched everything over to the generic circles. The difference between the two is subtle, but I think the generic circles are slightly easier to read at 20 pixels. Iowa DOES use Series C 2-digit circles per the spec, so I'd like to maintain a set of Series C circles no matter what we decide. –Fredddie™ 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What about "circle sign xx Series C.svg" and "circle sign xx Series D.svg"? --NE2 02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

While I can see the logic behind this, I am concerned that Commons wouldn't go for it; we've had problems with them not deleting redundant files before. --Rschen7754 05:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Were those completely identical files like circle* and ellipse*? --NE2 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In the case I'm referring to, yes, just a different file format. We can always try, and see if they object... --Rschen7754 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

These are identical, even down to format. The only reason they exist is that image redirects weren't around (and our templates couldn't distinguish between two- and three-digit numbers). --NE2 06:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Rschen you're talking about them not deleting PNG files because of their silly superseded image policy. This is deleting, renaming, and creating redirects so everything works as intended, not just deleting because we have SVGs. –Fredddie™ 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If not, I'm going to redirect the first to the second. --NE2 14:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At 20px, no. At the top of an infobox, perhaps. It's basically the same reason I switched out state-name Interstate shields for neuters in most of the Jct modules but left them alone for infoboxes. –Fredddie™ 14:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind - I missed the puffy cheeks in Arkansas. --NE2 15:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)  Done

Hi! I know have requested this before, but it turns out TN SR 73 Scenic is Dual (meaning it has both Primary and Secondary designations) For reference go Google Maps to Gatlinburg, TN, then on Street View at the Intersection of US 441 and Ski Mountain Road and the you will see what I am talking about. :) I hope I came to the right place. --ACase0000 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it later today, but could you provide actual links to show exactly what you're talking about? Just because you tell us how to get there doesn't mean we'll see it when we look it up. –Fredddie™ 18:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the reassurance he's talking about. This trailblazer appears to confirm, given that SR 73 actually turns right to follow US 321. So I guess this means SR 73 Scenic is actually a loop with both ends at SR 73, but without signs through GSMNP.

About the shields: I'm not sure why, but {{infobox road small}} won't accept type=Dual the way {{infobox road}} does. --NE2 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@NE2: That is because it has TN-Scenic hasn't been created yet. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the Main line SR 73 is concurrent with US 321 from Cocke County, to Loudon County. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

North Dakota appears to be in the early stages of transitioning to a new shield design. Page 75 of [10] has specs. No official announcement, specs apparently just started appearing in new contracts last month. Might be prudent to go ahead and make some graphics but hold off on inserting them into articlespace until we know for sure what's going on. Thanks to J.N. Winkler on AARoads for the catch, otherwise we wouldn't have known until someone stumbled across one in the field. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We have templates already, courtesy of Fredddie at commons:Category:2015 North Dakota Highway shields. Given the comments on AARoads, it's probably not until this coming spring that we'd expect to see any of these new markers in the field given the lead times involved since these are only out for bids now. 13:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mcdonaat: why was File:Louisiana 3.svg reverted to the old version? --NE2 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we were going to create the new ones at Louisiana <num> (2008).svg. We just haven't yet. –Fredddie™ 22:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not move the old ones to (pre-2008)? --NE2 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was I tagged in this? I just got my Internet back up and running, so the only modifications I've done in the past 6 months have been related to the parish routes signed along Interstates (basically, what we would link to for Interstate exit lists), which are now on one page. I've left the state shields alone. 'Mcdonaat → 03:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

LTNS Mcdonaat. Is there a list of LA highways that survived the great purge? We should probably rectify the shields sooner than later. –Fredddie™ 03:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the 'great purge' occurred after many shields were changed, we should change all the shields. --NE2 06:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I pinged you because you reverted the shield... --NE2 06:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Any updates on when the switch over to the new black/white shields will take place? —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Black and white signs are going up now, but I believe it's as the green shields age out. I cleaned up the category so we can upload shields to the specific 1-500 category. –Fredddie™ 21:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the naming format we're using for the B/W shields? You said above that it's going to be File:Louisiana <num> (2008).svg but there's a mixture of formats in the categories now. I ask because I can start to help out by extracting some of the shields (though only the ones with the all Type B-font) I've made for the LA maps I've previously done. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look for a tool that will let us move files en masse, but the 2008 scheme seems like the smart thing to do. It would be far to big of a pain in the ass to manually move all the green shields to File:Louisiana <num> (1990).svg, as was suggested above. –Fredddie™ 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a tool, but it will create redirects, which is not optimal. As such, we'll use the 2008 scheme. Let me know if you find some green shields in the b/w categories and vice versa. –Fredddie™ 01:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are County bannered routes acceptable for junction templates in New Jersey road articles, but not on New York ones? I'm not trying to write any articles on County alternate, business, or truck routes, of course, but it would be nice to know you can add templates with County bannered routes when you need them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about being able to type, for instance, {{Jct|state=NJ|CR-Spur|501}} but not {{Jct|state=NY|CR-Spur|1|county1=Rockland}}? –Fredddie™ 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Something like that, but I was leaning more towards {{Jct|state=NY|CR-Truck|80|county1=Suffolk}}. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@DanTD: I believe the purpose behind my friend's question was to ascertain that you desire {{jct}} to include the option for special routes of county routes to work, and if that's the case, and we don't really care which specific roads, then it's a matter of adding the various special route subtypes into the appropriate Lua module for New York. By way of explanation, each state has a Lua module that defines each type of roadway along with how to construct the links, which graphics to use and what abbreviations are appropriate. Unless that module is updated, {{jct}} doesn't know that New York has special routes of county routes. In any event, it should not be a graphics issue. Imzadi 1979 → 14:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that, and I was hoping the subtypes would work throughout the state. I just posted my example so that everyone knew what I intended to use it for. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Types and subtypes are defined by state. Do we have a fairly complete list of which subtypes are needed? I'd like to do this in one set of edits if I could, DanTD. Imzadi 1979 → 16:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The only ones I know of are with County Road 80 off of Montauk Highway. If I knew of any other subtypes that were needed, I welcome the updates. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You should now be in business:

CR 80 Truck
Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope I can find others out there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)