q: Do you have a chart showing what the fonts look like side by side, or a map to which characters in the arrows/icons/signback fonts map to which symbols?
a: No, not yet. Most OS’s have a utility that lets you see font maps however. In Windows XP, it’s Character Map (Start | Programs | Accessories | System Tools)
q: How did you make these fonts?
a: Depending on the character, I either used specs posted online, a very high res picture, or some improvisation, to start. I traced the image of each character using ScanFont, and did some cleanup in FontLab.
q: Why haven’t you cloned the fonts/sign icons for <insert country here>?
a: I live in the U.S. The fonts and icons included in the Roadgeek 2005 family are the characters I was able to get a hold of relatively easily and which satisfied my own interests. Making these fonts eats up a lot of time, so expanding the collection doesn’t seem like much fun to me given the extra work that would be involved. Besides, my wife is already upset enough at me for “wasting” that much time on these “silly” fonts as it is. 
q: May I use these fonts on my own website?
a: Generally, yes. The details are in the license. You can use them for most online or noncommercial purposes, as long as you don’t try to sell them. However, if you are looking for a font to make actual signs for “for-real” purposes, please don’t use my fonts; go license the real ones.
q: May I use these fonts on t-shirts or flyers I’m handing out to or selling for my church/school/social group?
a: Generally, no. You’re pushing or passing the bounds of non-commercial, hobbyist use. If you need highway-sign-like fonts, you probably should be using one of the commercial fonts, or some other less-encumbered font. Sorry.
q: What colors should I use on my sign graphics?
a: Really, that’s completely up to you. The FHWA does have some color specifications in their online documentation, but it has been noted that these colors look more like an older specification than what’s really used today:
| Color | Panose ID | RGB (according to Photoshop) |
| Brown | 469 | 97,54,29 |
| Green | 342 | 0,110,85 |
| Red | 187 | 181,39,60 |
| Blue | 294 | 0,62,134 |
| Yellow | 116 | 255,207,0 |
| Orange | 152 | 230,113,0 |
When I grabbed the Nebraska MUTCD online, however, I noticed they used different colors in the specs for their pictures (although these don’t seem to be “officially” specified):
| Color | CMYK | RGB (according to Photoshop) |
| Brown | 38/63/93/36 | 119,78,36 |
| Green | 100/0/79/9 | 0,155,103 |
| Red | 0/100/65/0 | 237,23,36 |
| Blue | 93/57/2/0 | 0,107,177 |
| Yellow | 0/0/100/0 | 255,242,0 |
| Orange | 0/51/87/0 | 247,146,51 |
Personally, I think the Nebraska colors look better. However, for my roadgeek work, I’ve been using the FHWA Panose -to- RGB conversions listed in the upper chart.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment