« on: November 18, 2005, 07:53:27 pm »
I think that the pictures signs look cool, but the overhead graphics are much more useful, especially if you have never played a course before (isnâ€™t that who truly uses the signs). The picture depicts only one time of year while the hole may look completely different depending on the season, and may not correctly associate a dogleg or other obstacle between the pad and the pin. Also, I am not sure how well the pictures age. If the elements are allowed to penetrate the laminate the picture gets â€œwavyâ€ and isnâ€™t as useful.
What about the cost? Are they similar? I would think that a replacement for a damaged or vandalized schematic such as Rosedaleâ€™s would be easier to replace.
I am curious about what people think are the best examples of signage, across the spectrum, and not limited to the two aforementioned types on any course they have played. This could include wishful thinking if cost were of no consideration.
In my limited experience, the signs in Des Moines at Walnut Ridge and Ewing Park which, as I recall, are similar to the thick textured plastic associated with ball golf signage are very useful and aesthetically pleasing. My guess is that these are very expensive to provide for every hole, and could considerably raise the cost due to the need to include signs at each pad where more than one pad exists per hole.
I believe that it is Oak Park in Wichita that has the hole depictions painted on the tee pads, and include an arrow pointing toward the next tee. These are great because you donâ€™t have to extrapolate the information horizontally after looking at a vertical sign. I think the tee pads are coated with something to protect the paint on the pad. Those may be more susceptible to vandalism, but donâ€™t require any poles which looks nice.
This is just some random (rambling) thoughts about signs on my part. This was obviously not meant to offend those who are enamored of the picture signs nor is it to suggest the club spend exorbitant sums on new signage.